9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings. Ithaca, NY

Transcription

1 9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings Ithaca, NY Progress Reports 1 to 4 July 13, 2010 Prepared by: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer City of Ithaca, DPW Engineering Office 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850

2 Shared Lane Marking Study Executive Summary History/Purpose Shared Lane Markings (popularly known as Sharrows ) are recently-adopted (Dec. 2009) standard pavement markings that can be used to indicate to motorists and bicyclists where a bicyclist should generally ride under normal circumstances, to serve as a way-finding tool for bicyclists by connecting otherwise disjointed bike lanes or bike routes, and/or to raise awareness that bicyclists may be present. In 2006, when the City of Ithaca s project with Shared Lane Markings (SLM s) began, these markings had already been experimented with in dozens of cities but were not yet approved standard pavement markings. Some positive results were experienced where these markings were used, including: the markings encouraged bicyclists to ride farther away from parked cars (outside of the door zone ), to follow a more predictable path (reduced weaving around parked cars), and to ride more often with the flow of traffic (reduced wrong-way riding). For motorists, the markings increased their awareness that bicyclists may be present and led to more careful passing of bicyclists. The presence of the markings also led to a reduction of bicycle riding on sidewalks (which is prohibited in most cases in Ithaca). Encouraged by those experiences, the City of Ithaca decided to experiment with these markings. It was hoped that these markings might lead to an uncommonly simple compromise that would simultaneously improve conditions for bicyclists while retaining the existing on-street parking desired by many residents and visitors. Project evolution/description A number of design options were considered in various locations in Ithaca. The final design scope included: the installation of pavement markings along the length of Cayuga St. (approx. 7,000 ft in length), an engineering study of the effects of the markings, and the production of progress reports detailing the ongoing study. City approval to pursue this project was granted in the fall of Because SLM s were not yet standard pavement markings, special approval to experiment with this marking was required from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This approval was secured in The Engineering Office completed the project design in mid-2007 and planned to have the markings installed in spring In an effort to reduce costs, this project was combined with three other street projects: a repaving project, a lane re-striping project, and a nearby bicycle lane project. Due to a number of factors, this combination of projects delayed the SLM project until the fall of 2008; at which point, it was determined that a springtime installation would be preferable. As soon as weather conditions permitted in the spring of 2009, the markings were installed. The installation was performed at night to minimize traffic disruptions. In total, 78 markings were installed at a cost of approximately $20,000 (or around $250 per marking). Prior to the installation and following the installation, the Engineering Office provided information to the media and the public regarding the project. The project has been covered by the Ithaca Journal and Ithaca Times newspapers and has been discussed 2

3 multiple times on WHCU, a local talk radio station. On the City s web site, a FAQ sheet has been posted to answer general questions about the project. Feedback from the public Public opinion of the SLM s along Cayuga St. varied substantially. Of the people who provided feedback, about 1/2 were in favor of the markings, about 1/5 were opposed to the markings and about 1/3 were in the middle or undecided. The presence of the markings initiated a valuable public discussion about rules and expectations regarding bicycle riding and motor vehicle driving behaviors; a discussion that indicated that there are conflicting views regarding proper behaviors. Analysis Overall, the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings was successful. City staff gained a greater understanding of the design nuances associated with this marking, such as preferred marking locations at intersections. A greater understanding was also gained regarding how to identify locations that are good candidates for future SLM applications. The below four types of situations seem to be the most likely to see benefits from SLM s: 1. In the downhill travel lane opposite an uphill bike lane 2. As wayfinding markings to guide bicyclists through a confusing route 3. At very specific locations where motorists and/or bicyclists need to be reminded where bicyclists should be positioned on the roadway 4. Where bike lanes would otherwise be desired, but are currently infeasible In regard to observable behavior changes of bicyclists and motorists in the presence of the SLM s on Cayuga St., no significant changes have been observed by staff. That is not to say that no changes have occurred, but rather that the low volume of bicyclists (around 13 bicyclists per hour, on average) and the highly variable behaviors of bicyclists precluded project staff from obtaining data that would accurately indicate the degree to which behaviors changed. Future implications The Shared Lane Marking design is a valuable new tool in the City s transportation toolbox. This is also a very specific tool that may only be used in a few locations in Ithaca. It remains unclear whether the benefits of the SLM s justify the associated costs. The installation costs are rather low (about $250 per marking), but the expected benefits seem rather low as well. Members of the public who provided feedback regarding this experiment had a broad range of opinions regarding the usefulness of this marking; overall though, there seems to be sufficient public support of SLM s to encourage staff to consider additional installations in Ithaca in the future. 3

4 9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings Ithaca, NY Progress Report 1 of 4 August 11, 2009 Prepared and submitted by: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer City of Ithaca, DPW Engineering Office 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY

5 Introduction This report summarizes the first three months of the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings. Subsequent progress reports will be completed every three months, for a total of four reports at the conclusion of the year-long study. This report details: - Description and purpose of markings - Project evolution - Process of marking application - Initial public response - Early data collection efforts Description and purpose of Shared Lane Markings The markings, technically termed Shared Lane Markings and commonly referred to as Sharrows, consist of a bicycle symbol with a double chevron arrow above it. This design apparently began in Denver in the 1990 s as the Bike-in-House design (see Figure 1) and has evolved over a number of years into its current form (see Figure 2). Over 50 U.S. cities have experimented with this marking, including: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Louisville, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Santa Fe, Burlington, Seattle, Cambridge, Las Vegas, Tucson, Athens, and Portland. The markings are pending approval as standard pavement markings to be potentially included in the next edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) anticipated to be released in 2009 (proposed text is in Appendix A). 1 The purposes of the markings vary to some degree depending on the context. There are three general purposes: 1. the markings indicates to motorists and bicyclists where a bicyclist should generally ride under normal circumstances, 2. the markings may serve as a way-finding tool for bicyclists by connecting otherwise disjointed bike lanes or bike routes, and/or 3. to raise awareness that bicyclists may be present. Figure 1: "Bike-in-House" markings were first tried in Denver in the 1990's (photo credits unknown) Figure 2: Current design - example from Pittsburgh (photo credits unknown) In a study prepared by Alta Planning + Design for the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (2004) 2, the presence of these markings led to improved motorists and bicyclists behavior in a number of ways. Those improved behaviors include: 1 As noted in Progress Report 3, Shared Lane Markings were adopted as standard markings in the MUTCD in December Other studies available: the Gainesville, FL study (1999), Sunnyvale, CA study (2005) and Bellevue, WA study (2009). Numerous cities are currently undertaking studies and results from these studies should be available soon. In apparently most cases, no formal study was conducted in conjunction with installing Shared Lane Markings. 5

6 - The markings encouraged bicyclists to: o ride further away from parked cars (outside of the door zone ) o follow a more predictable path (reduced weaving around parked cars) o ride with the flow of traffic (reduced wrong-way riding) - For motorists, the markings increased their awareness that bicyclists may be present and led to more careful passing of bicyclists. - The presence of the markings also led to a reduction of bicycle riding on sidewalks (which is prohibited in most cases in Ithaca). Project evolution In early 2006, the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works Engineering Office began to look into the concept of using Shared Lane Markings (SLM s) on streets where bicycle lanes were desired but insufficient space was available due to a larger desire to retain existing on-street parking. It was hoped that the application of these markings would strike a suitable compromise between improving bicyclists safety and retaining on-street parking. A number of design options were considered in various locations in Ithaca. Input from the City of Ithaca Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC), NYSDOT and others helped to refine this project. Ultimately, it was decided that the markings would be installed along Cayuga St. between Spencer St. and York St. (see Map 1). City approval to pursue this project was granted in the fall of Map 1: The above map illustrates the segment of Cayuga St. included in the Shared Lane Marking experiment (red line). Because SLM s were not yet standard pavement markings, special approval to experiment with this marking was required from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as per Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. This approval was secured in It is believed that Ithaca is the smallest U.S. city to receive FHWA approval to experiment with this marking. As a component of this approval, progress reports are to be sent to FHWA to detail the evolution of the experiment. 3 To view a copy of the City of Ithaca s FHWA application materials, go to:

7 The Engineering Office completed the project design in mid-2007 and planned to have the markings installed in spring In an effort to reduce costs, this project was combined with three other street projects: a repaving project, a lane re-striping project, and a nearby bicycle lane project. Due to a number of factors, this combination of projects delayed the SLM project until the fall of 2008; at which point, it was determined that a springtime installation would be preferable. As soon as weather conditions permitted in the spring of 2009, the markings were installed along the length of Cayuga St. (approx. 7,000 ft in length). The Figure 3: The Shared Lane Markings were installed at night to minimize traffic impacts. installation was performed at night to minimize traffic disruptions (see Figure 3). There was some concern of performing the work at night because of noise impacts, but since the noise impact was relatively limited in duration (about 2-5 minutes per marking location) this option was selected. In total, 78 markings were installed at a cost of approximately $20,000 (or around $250 per marking). Prior to the installation and following the installation, the Engineering Office provided information to the media and the public regarding the project. The project has been covered by the Ithaca Journal and Ithaca Times newspapers and has been discussed multiple times on WHCU, a local talk radio station. On the City s web site, a FAQ sheet (see Appendix B) has been posted to answer general questions about the project. Marking application The contractor constructed multiple sets of stencils so that stoppage to clean stencils would occur at greater intervals (each stencil could be used 5-7 times before cleaning was necessary). Work activities commenced at about 8:30pm on May 11, Contractor progress was observed by the project manager at 9:00pm, 11:30pm, 4:30am, and 8:00am as work was concluding. The idling noise of the marking truck was significant but not excessive. Some noise complaints were received. Each marking required approximately 2-3 minutes to apply. The markings were installed along one side of the street at a time and were protected with cones until the markings could be driven upon. Traffic impacts seemed to be very minor. If the work had been performed during the day, the traffic impacts would likely have been severe. Initial public response Engineering staff managing this project were surprised that they received little initial public reaction to the markings. Within the first two weeks, perhaps a dozen comments were received with approximately ¾ of the comments being favorable. A few of the respondents were extremely supportive of the markings and a similar number were extremely opposed to the markings. Comments ranged substantially; probably due to road users varying interpretations of traffic laws and varying opinions about what types of infrastructure should be Figure 4: Photo of installed Shared Lane Marking 7

8 provided for bicycle users. Bicycle users, in particular, have expressed quite varied opinions about the markings. In addition to receiving comments about the markings, comments have been received regarding the level of information provided to the public relating to this project. A number of individuals felt that insufficient information was provided by the City to adequately educate the public about the markings. Early data collection efforts Three types of data collection efforts have been performed thus far: 1. Collect and review public responses submitted to the Engineering Office - Public responses have been submitted to the Engineering Office via phone calls, s, and direct interaction. The responses tend to be either strongly in favor of the markings or strongly opposed to the markings. 2. Observations of traffic behavior by Engineering staff Observations to date have consisted of a.) Engineering staff driving and cycling along the experimental segment, and b.) Engineering staff observing motorists and bicyclists behavior along the experiment segment. Though some data has been collected, it is too soon to draw conclusions from this data. 3. Intercept questionnaires There has been concern by Engineering staff that the responses received are not representative of the general public. Additionally, staff has been somewhat concerned from the beginning of the experiment that too large of a percentage of the general public do not understand the meaning of the test markings. To address the above issues, intercept questionnaires have been administered on two occasions. The responses gathered thus far, suggest that the public has a rather low interest in, and understanding of, the markings but that they generally understand the meaning of the markings. These responses varied substantially from the responses submitted to the Engineering Office (item 1 above). Conclusion The City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings is proceeding satisfactorily. There have been no indications that the markings are leading to safety problems or any other negative traffic impacts. It is not clear at this point whether sufficient benefits have resulted from the markings to justify their installation costs. One notable outcome of the markings thus far, has been the increased awareness of road users of proper roadway positioning of bicycles. It has also become apparent that there is little consensus on proper driving and bicycling behaviors. Bicycle users and motorists alike have expressed surprise (and some skepticism) upon seeing the location suggested for bicycle travel indicated by the markings (11-6 from the curb face where on-street parking is permitted). This educational aspect has prompted a valuable, if limited, dialog about proper bicycle use and other bicycle-related topics within the Ithaca community; a dialog which will hopefully expand as the experiment continues. Progress Report #2 will be completed in late fall 2009 and will include, among other things, public outreach activities planned to coincide with the beginning of the fall semester, expanded analysis of design elements, and more substantial data collection activities. 8

9 Appendix A Proposed text for inclusion in the next edition of the MUTCD (see (page )): Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking Option: The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. 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, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Guidance: The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 50 km/h or 35 mph. Standard: Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings shall be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 3.4 m (11 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. Guidance: If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 4.3 m (14 ft) wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 75 m (250 ft) thereafter. 9

10 Shared Lane Markings ( Sharrows ) Frequently-Asked Questions Appendix B Q: What are Shared Lane Markings? Shared Lane Markings (or Sharrows short for shareduse arrows) are experimental pavement markings designed to remind motorists and bicyclists where bicyclists should generally ride when sharing a standard travel lane with other traffic. Bicyclists should ride over the center of the symbol in the same direction as traffic (see illustrations to the right). Q: Are the rules different in locations with Sharrows? No, bicycle users and motorists must still follow the typical traffic rules and regulations. The markings simply serve as a reminder of the existing rules. Q: So, if the rules are the same, what are the benefits? what s the point? Not all bicyclists behave properly around motor vehicles, and not all motorists behave properly around bicyclists. Experimental use of Sharrows in other communities has shown that both bicyclists and motorists behavior improved after the installation of the markings. The markings encouraged bicyclists to ride farther away from parked cars (outside of the door zone ), to follow a more predictable path (reduced weaving around parked cars), and to ride with the flow of traffic (reduced wrong-way riding). For motorists, the markings increased their awareness that bicyclists may be present and led to more careful passing of bicyclists. The presence of the markings also led to a reduction of bicycle riding on sidewalks. (In the City of Ithaca, bicyclists may not ride on sidewalks or other areas intended for pedestrian-only use. Exceptions: In the City of Ithaca, children age 10 and under, and anyone who, because of a disability, uses a bicycle as a means of transportation or mobility may ride on sidewalks) Q: As a motorist, how should I drive on streets with Sharrows? If bicyclists are not present, drive in the travel lane as you normally would your right-hand tires will likely travel directly over the Sharrow markings. If bicyclists are present, simply slow down and pass with care. When passing, please be careful to not endanger on-coming traffic if traffic is heavy, please be patient and wait for a suitable gap in traffic before passing. 10

11 Q: As a bicyclist, must I ride over the Sharrows? No. The markings simply indicate where bicyclists would be expected to ride under ordinary conditions. If bicyclists are turning left, passing other cyclists, avoiding potholes, etc., they may position themselves away from the markings. Also, if cars are not parked along the curb, bicyclists may ride well to the right of the markings but, cyclists should not weave in and out between parked cars. Q: Where is the City of Ithaca going to install the Sharrows? The markings have been placed on Cayuga Street between Spencer Street and York Street. If the experiment is successful, additional locations will be considered. Currently, Sharrows are experimental markings, which means that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must grant permission to municipalities who wish to test this marking on an experimental basis. The City of Ithaca has received such permission. Positive similar experiments in dozens of U.S. cities has led the FHWA to consider adoption of Sharrows as a standard marking that can be routinely used without special permission. Q: Why not just install standard bike lanes? Sharrows are not intended to be a substitute for standard bike lanes, rather they may be a good option where bike lanes are otherwise warranted but insufficient space is currently available. Such is the case on Cayuga Street. Q: How can I learn more about this experiment with Sharrows? Contact Tim Logue ( ) or Kent Johnson ( ) in the City of Ithaca Engineering Office or at timlo@cityofithaca.org or kjohnson@cityofithaca.org. 11

12 9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings Ithaca, NY Progress Report 2 of 4 November 11, 2009 Prepared and submitted by: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer City of Ithaca, DPW Engineering Office 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY

13 Introduction This is the second report on the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings and summarizes key activities during months four through six of the project. The first report discussed the following: - Description and purpose of markings - Project evolution - Process of marking application - Initial public response - Early data collection efforts This second report discusses the following: - Public outreach - Analysis of design elements - Data collection activities. Public Outreach From the onset of this experiment, it was anticipated that a significant public outreach component would be included. As mentioned in Progress Report #1, prior to the installation of the markings and following the installation, the City provided information to the media and the public regarding the project. Additionally, the project was covered by the Ithaca Journal and Ithaca Times newspapers and was discussed multiple times on WHCU, a local talk radio station. Since the initial public outreach effort, little additional outreach efforts have occurred. This has been the case because: 1. Lack of perceived need There is not evidence to suggest that continued public outreach is needed for safety reasons or for the purpose of improving the experiment. 2. Workload constraints Workload priorities suggest that staff time be dedicated to other activities. Even though the ongoing public outreach efforts are minimal, staff members overseeing the experiment do not see this as detrimental. A possible benefit of minimal public outreach is that roadway users must interpret the Shared Lane Markings for themselves; successful markings should be intuitive and not require additional explanation to be effective. To evaluate how well roadway users interpret the markings, questionnaires will be administered in the future. As mentioned in Progress Report #1, some intercept questionnaires were already administered (about two months after the markings were installed) to get a broad sense of how well the public understood the markings. Based on the limited findings, it appeared that the public mostly understood the gist of the markings. 13

14 Analysis of Design Elements The markings were installed consistent with the text proposed for inclusion in the next edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) anticipated to be released in 2009 (proposed text can be seen in Appendix A of Progress Report 1). However, the text is very general and does not address specific conditions, such as how close the markings should be to intersections. Longitudinal spacing of markings The proposed text states that, If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 75 m (250 feet) thereafter. At intersections, two designs were used; in some cases the markings are immediately after (and before) the intersection (about 6 feet beyond the stop bar or crosswalk, in other cases the markings are placed about 20 feet away from the stop bar or crosswalk (see Figures 1 & 2). The latter design appears preferable because the markings are more distinct from the other intersection markings, and the markings are outside (or close to outside) of the no parking area adjacent to intersections. To Figure 1: At some locations, the Shared Lane Markings are elaborate on the last point, the place immediately after (and before) the intersection. markings look awkward if placed too close to intersections where parking is prohibited because through-traveling cyclists will often queue to the right of the markings when stopped. Additionally, left-turning cyclists may be discouraged from moving to the left side of the travel lane. Figure 2: In other locations, the markings are placed about 20 Better, it seems, to locate the feet back from other intersection markings. markings at least 30 feet back from the stop bar or crosswalk so that the markings still relate to the on-street parking and do not interfere with cyclists proper lane positioning at the intersection. Along the experimental segment of street, the marking spacing intervals range from 100 feet to 290 feet; the average interval is approximately 200 feet. In only four cases does the spacing exceed the recommended 250 foot maximum. The variations are due to varying block lengths. In practice, intervals under 200 feet seem too short and the 290 foot interval seems fine. On opposite sides of intersections, the markings are separated by feet which seems somewhat visually distracting; moving the markings back (as suggested in the paragraph above) seems preferable. 14

15 Lateral spacing of markings The proposed text states that, If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings shall be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 3.4 m (11 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. And, If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 4.3 m (14 ft) wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. Based on observations of others who had experience with Shared Lane Markings and felt that the 11 foot distance was a bit too close to parked cars and that 11-6 was preferable, it was decided that in the Ithaca experiment 11-6 should be used. In locations without on-street parking, the 4 foot distance to the curb was used. Because of the desire to have properly placed markings, the contractor was informed that any markings misplaced by more than 2 laterally would be subject to removal and re-application at the contractor s expense. In regard to lateral spacing in locations that permit on-street parking, the 11-6 distance from the curb seems generally suitable. However, at many times long sections of onstreet parking are unoccupied and cycling over the markings (rather than moving right into the open parking lane4) feels awkward and unnecessary, especially when motorists are waiting to pass (see Figure 3). There have been a couple anecdotal reports of conflicts arising when bicyclists chose to ride in-line with the markings rather than moving into the parking lane; presumably because motorists felt that Figure 3: Some sections of the experimental they were being unnecessarily delayed. To segment routinely have low usage of on-street parking. Consequently, common sense address this situation, two measures have been suggests that bicyclists will ride in the parking considered. First, the markings could be limited lane area rather than continue in-line with the to locations with consistently high rates of Shared Lane Markings yet some bicyclists parking occupancy. And second, an edgeline will continue riding over the markings, which, delineating the parking lane could be installed. in the opinion of the Engineering Office, is legally allowed. It is unknown whether either measure would 4 Interestingly, some local police officers subscribe to a lane-within-a-lane principle whereas, absent parked cars, the travel lane is the entire paved width between the curb and centerline; parked cars are simply parking inside of a very wide travel lane. Therefore, absent parked cars, bicyclists should legally ride near the curb. Alternately, one could view (as the Engineering Office does) the situation as a parking lane adjacent to a travel lane where bicyclists would be legally entitled to travel in the travel lane whether the adjacent parking lane was occupied or not. In practice, common sense seems to generally prevail, but the issue of where exactly bicyclists can legally ride is often debated. Further complicating this issue is the fact that in many locations elsewhere in Ithaca, if the parking lane was delineated with a white line, the remaining space to the centerline would be substandard in width.

16 reduce conflicts or improve safety. As mentioned in Longitudinal spacing of markings above, a few markings placed very close to intersections seem awkward because the prohibition of on-street parking around intersections creates an ambiguous situation as to where bicyclists should be laterally located. For the same reasons that bike lanes are often suspended in the vicinity of intersections (namely, to avoid encouragement of improper lane positioning of bicyclists), it seems reasonable that Shared Lane Markings also be suspended. At typical intersections, it seems preferable to place the markings adjacent to the final parking space before the intersection. In either case, marking placement on the approach to intersections seems more important than marking placement on the far side of intersections. Markings at transition locations Along the segment under experimentation, the following significant transitions occur: Northbound travel: 1. Northbound markings begin at the south terminus of the experimental segment (at the Cayuga/Spencer intersection). This location does not contain on-street parking, so the first two northbound markings are centered 4 feet from the curb face. There are no signs announcing the markings. The transition into the experimental segment seems suitable. 2. On-street parking is prohibited approximately 150 feet prior to and approximately 100 feet following the intersection of Cayuga/Clinton Street (approx. 1,400 feet north of the Cayuga/Spencer intersection) so that a leftturn-only lane can be used. Therefore, the Shared Lane Markings immediately before and after this intersection were placed 4 feet O.C. (on center) from the curb face to coincide with the thru-lane location (see Figure 4). Figure 4: The marking on the far side of the intersection (under arrow) is placed 4 feet, on center, from the curb to align with the marking in the foreground. 3. At the intersection of Cayuga/Green (approx. 1,400 feet north of the Cayuga/Spencer intersection), the northbound travel lane terminates due to the one-way southbound operation of Cayuga St. for the next two blocks. Consequently, all northbound traffic must turn right onto Green Street. Initially, a Shared Lane Marking was placed as shown in Figure 5 below, but was later removed because it seemed that the marking could potentially suggest to bicyclists that continued northbound travel was permitted. Despite the potential problem, no complaints or concerns were received regarding this marking. 4. At the intersection of Cayuga/Seneca St. (approx. 700 feet north of the Cayuga/Green St. intersection), the northbound Shared Lane Markings resume. 16

17 From this intersection to the northern terminus of the experimental segment (approx. 4,700 feet to the north at the intersection of Cayuga/York St.) the layout design remains consistent with the markings placed 11-6 from the curb face as on-street parking is permitted. The transition into this segment seems suitable. 5. The markings cease at the Cayuga/York St. intersection. In the block following, on-street parking is not allowed and the travel lanes gradually taper from around 18 feet wide to 15 feet wide. There are no signs announcing the end of the markings. The transition from the experimental segment back to the standard street seems suitable. Southbound travel: 1. Southbound markings begin at the Cayuga/York Street intersection mentioned above. As with the beginning of the northbound markings, no signs announce the arrival of the markings. In the block preceding, the travel lane gradually increases from about 15 feet wide to about 18 feet wide (on-street parking is prohibited). The design characteristics of this transition seem suitable. The marking layout from the Cayuga/York St. intersection to the Cayuga/Seneca St. intersection remains consistent throughout; on-street parking is permitted and markings are 11-6 from curb face. 2. Immediately following the Cayuga/Seneca St. intersection, the Figure 5: View from Cayuga St. facing northward at the Green St. intersection. Due to the approaching one-way street and crossing one-way street, all northbound traffic must turn right. The Shared Lane Marking shown in the top photo may suggest to bicyclists that continued northbound travel is permitted. To avoid confusion, the marking was ground off of the pavement. street becomes one-way in the southbound direction (two southbound travel lanes flanked by on-street parking). Through this two-block-long one-way segment, the Shared Lane Markings continue at 11-6 from the right-hand curb. In retrospect, it may have been preferable to place the markings 11-6 from the left-hand curb as well since bicyclists may travel in both lanes. However, the current layout seems satisfactory. 3. At the Cayuga/Green St. intersection, the street returns to two-way operation. The markings continue at a distance of 11-6 from the curb after the intersection. The layout seems appropriate. 17

18 4. At the Cayuga/Clinton St. intersection the markings are moved to 4 feet O.C. from the curb because of the added left-turn-only lane, as was the case in the northbound direction (see Figure 6). This layout seems appropriate. 5. Finally, the southbound segment terminates at the Cayuga/Spencer St. intersection. Just prior to this intersection on-street parking is prohibited, so the Shared Lane Markings are placed 4 feet O.C. from the curb face. This transition seems suitable. Marking durability The markings were constructed with epoxy paint because standard water-based traffic paint was thought to be insufficiently durable to retain adequate legibility throughout the study period, and thermoplastic material was prohibitively expensive. The epoxy paint has proved to be a suitably durable material and has remained legible in all locations except one. Apparently, the epoxy paint may not adequately adhere to concrete surfaces, as can be observed in Figure 7. Overall, the legibility of the markings seems consistent with other similar types of pavement markings, such as stop bars and crosswalks. Figure 6: These markings were placed 4 feet O.C. from the curb face on either side of the intersection to coincide with the shifted thru lane. (The arrow indicates the location of the stencil on the far side of the intersection) Data collection activities Data regarding the behavior of bicycle users traveling along the experimental segment of Cayuga St. was gathered prior to the installation of the Shared Lane Markings as well as after the installation of the markings (see Figure 8 below for an example of the data collection sheet used). Prior to the installation of Figure 7: Worn marking on a concrete bridge deck. the markings, data was collected on: April 25, 2008, May 13, 2008, June 12, 2008, October 24, 2008, and October 27, After the markings were installed, data was collected on June 24 & 25, 2009; additional data collection will be conducted in the spring of The data was collected in 30 minute blocks at one of four locations. Data collectors noted weather conditions, extent of parked cars along the street, how bicyclists positioned themselves on the roadway, and other observations. Despite the numerous data collection efforts, the data collected seems to be of limited utility due to the small sample size of bicyclists during each observation. Over a 30 minute period, the number of bicyclists observed ranged from 4 to 9 with an average of 6.6, or about 1 bicyclist counted every 5 minutes. Due to the small sample sizes, it is not possible to draw specific conclusions from the data at this time. 18

19 Figure 8: An example of a data collection form. However, the collected data does seem to reveal that bicycle user behaviors vary to a large degree in the before condition. One of the purported benefits of the experimental markings is that bicyclists will tend to exhibit more predictable behavior when traveling along the marked street. In the spring of 2010, when more data is collected, it will be interesting to see if bicycling behaviors seem to be more consistent. Data collection has proved more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated. New data collection strategies, such as increasing participation of volunteers, will be attempted in the spring of Conclusion The City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings is still proceeding satisfactorily. Over the first six months of experimentation, there have been no indications that the markings are leading to safety problems or any other negative traffic impacts. During this month four to month six report period, public outreach activities have been minimal, marking design elements have been carefully evaluated, and some data collection has been performed. Even though the public outreach efforts have been minimal during this report period, staff overseeing the experiment does not see this as detrimental. A possible benefit of minimal public outreach is that roadway users must interpret the Shared Lane Markings for themselves successful markings should be intuitive and not require additional explanation to be effective. 19

20 A variety of design elements have been evaluated including longitudinal and lateral spacing, transition areas, and marking durability. This evaluation suggests improved locations for markings in possible future applications. In particular, it seems preferable to install markings at least 30 feet away from intersections; rather than immediately after an intersection. Some data has been collected regarding the behavior of bicycle users before the markings were installed and after the markings were installed. However, small sample sizes have hampered analysis of the data. Additional data will be collected in the spring of Progress Report #3 will be completed in February Little work on this project is expected over the winter, so the report will likely be brief. 20

21 9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings Ithaca, NY Progress Report 3 of 4 February 11, 2010 Prepared and submitted by: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer City of Ithaca, DPW Engineering Office 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY

22 Introduction This is the third report on the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings (SLM s). Essentially, no work has been conducted on this project over the winter, so this report will be limited to a brief discussion on the recent inclusion of SLM s in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) update, and its implications for future installations in Ithaca. The first report discussed the following: - Description and purpose of markings - Project evolution - Process of marking application - Initial public response - Early data collection efforts The second report discussed the following: - Public outreach - Analysis of design elements - Data collection activities. This third report discusses the following: - Shared Lane Markings included in 2009 MUTCD update - Implications for the City of Ithaca s use of Shared Lane Markings Shared Lane Markings included in 2009 MUTCD update The 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2009 and became effective on January 15, This was the first comprehensive update to the MUTCD since the 2003 edition was released. One of the many updates is the inclusion of Shared Lane Markings (SLM s) as approved markings. The text in the MUTCD regarding SLM applications is essentially the same as the originally proposed text, with just a few changes, including a revised pavement marking graphic and an option to use the new Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign in addition to, or instead of, SLM s. The proposed and the adopted versions can be seen in Appendix A and B respectively. Individual states have two years to either adopt the 2009 MUTCD as is, to adopt it with state-specific amendments, or to adopt their own manual on traffic control devices. New York State typically adopts the national MUTCD along with a document of amendments that pertain specifically to traffic control devices in New York, called the New York State Supplement. Together, the national MUTCD and the NYS Supplement constitute the "uniform system of traffic control devices" required by Section 1680 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. Therefore, when the NYS Supplement is released, it may amend how SLM s should be used in New York; however, until contradictory guidance is provided, it can be reasonably presumed that the current guidance in the national MUTCD should be followed. 22

23 Implications for the City of Ithaca s use of Shared Lane Markings The adoption of the SLM s in the 2009 MUTCD does not directly impact the current study underway to experiment with the markings, but it will likely effect how the City considers these markings for future applications. Major obstacles to using these markings previously were 1.) the lengthy process involved in securing permission to experiment with non-standard markings and 2.) the public s lack of familiarity with the markings because the markings have not been widely used in the northeast. Once the markings become easy to install and are readily understood by the public, it is reasonable to expect that the markings will be installed more frequently and with greater effectiveness. This is almost certainly true for smaller municipalities that may not have the staff resources to carry out experimental marking projects but do have the resources to install standard, approved markings. The adopted language regarding the placement of SLM s technically allows such markings to be placed on virtually all streets within the City of Ithaca. However, it is impractical and inappropriate to install these markings at all possible locations, so some criteria to objectively determine a threshold of need and a method of prioritization are needed. Questionnaires planned for distribution in the spring as part of the current study will aid in the development of such criteria. 23

24 Appendix A Proposed text for inclusion in the next edition of the MUTCD (see (page )): Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking Option: The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. 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, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Guidance: The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 50 km/h or 35 mph. Standard: Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings shall be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 3.4 m (11 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. Guidance: If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 4.3 m (14 ft) wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 75 m (250 ft) thereafter. 24

25 Appendix B Actual text used in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD (see (pages 810 and 815)). Where the adopted text differs from the proposed text, the change is underlined. Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking Option: The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. 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, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Guidance: The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph.(note: metric units have been eliminated in the 2009 MUTCD) Standard: Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. Guidance: If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should (was shall in original proposal) be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter. Option: This approved marking differs slightly from the thick proposed marking; it is the same symbol that can be used for bike lanes (which is thinner) Section 9B.06 describes a Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign that may be used in addition to or instead of the Shared Lane Marking to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane. (This option was not in the original proposal) 25

26 9-96(E) Shared Lane Markings Ithaca, NY Progress Report 4 of 4 May 11, 2010 Prepared and submitted by: Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer City of Ithaca, DPW Engineering Office 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY

27 Introduction This is the fourth and final report on the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings (SLM s). The first report discussed the following: - Description and purpose of markings - Project evolution - Process of marking application - Initial public response - Early data collection efforts The second report discussed the following: - Public outreach - Analysis of design elements - Data collection activities. The third report discussed the following: - SLM s now included as standard markings in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (updated Dec. 2009) - Implications for the City of Ithaca experiment and future applications This fourth report discusses the following: - Findings from a second questionnaire - Installation recommendations for Ithaca prioritization and design elements - Summary of project Questionnaire findings Instead of stopping people on the street to administer the questionnaires (as was done shortly after the experiment began), these questionnaires were ed to multiple groups that cater to bicycling interests. Approximately 160 people responded. The questionnaire and a summary of the responses are listed below. Questionnaire limitations Though the returned questionnaires do supply a rich source of public feedback regarding the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings (SLM s) 5, the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the responses are limited by a number of factors, including: - Small sample size (162 responses in an urban area of approx. 30,000 people (approx. 0.5% of area population) - Respondents not randomly selected and bicyclists are over-represented - Incomplete answers (in many cases, respondents did not directly answer the posed questions and/or respondents editorialized on related topics) - The particular application of SLM s along Cayuga St. may not be the best application of the markings which may skew the responses 5 The public seems to favor the term Sharrow over Shared Lane Marking, so the term Sharrow was used in the questionnaires. 27

28 Questionnaire: Demographics: Gender Male Female Age What do you think the pavement marking in the photo means? (to motorists, to bicyclists?) Do you drive and/or bike in Ithaca? drive only bike only both neither visiting from out of town If you are a cyclist, how would you describe yourself? novice, experienced, etc.? Do you think Sharrows (the pavement marking pictured above) are useful markings that should be installed in other locations in Ithaca? Yes No Maybe Other (explain below) Other response to previous: Additional comments 28

29 Summary of responses: - Demographics, gender 66 females responded (41%), 94 males responded (58%) and two people did not indicate their gender. - Demographics, age the female average age was 43 and the average male age was 46. The youngest age given was 20 and the oldest was What do you think the pavement marking in the photo means? This question was deliberately left open-ended to see how people would respond. Most of the responses were fairly accurate; often using the themes shared roadway, where bikes are supposed to ride and motorists watch for bikes. About 7% of the people responding seemed to have very little idea what the markings meant or largely misinterpreted the markings. A sample of responses is listed below. o "heads up, folks you bikers and drivers are sharing this space. Make nice. Notice each other, Use your manners. o To motorists, be alert that cyclists may be sharing the lane with you. To cyclists: this lane is obviously inviting you to use it, so you might as well use it as a through street if you can (still obeying normal rules of the road for sharing with motorists) o A bike might be on this part of the road; bikes are welcome on this road. o a confusing waste of money o Although I believe it is supposed to show where cyclists should be riding, I think it serves more as a warning for drivers to be aware that there might be cyclists on the road. I think that for the latter purpose it is effective. o As a cyclist I think it means I have a right to ride down the middle of the road. As a motorist I give cyclists the courtesy and expect that they move to the right when there is traffic behind them o Be aware that bicyclists may be using this road. o bicycle and cars share the road - with bicycles using the middle of the lane (as indicated by the painted symbol) o Bicycle lane - bike with traffic. o Bicycles and cars are supposed to share the lane. (The lane is too narrow to accommodate cars and bikes both.) o Bicyclists: Ride in that part of the lane. Motorists: Bicyclists have the right to ride in that portion of the lane. o I first took it to mean that just ahead was a dedicated bike lane. That's wrong, of course, though one could argue that's what it ought to mean. I see no point in these markings. o Motorists should be aware that bicyclists may be in the lane, but the lane is not reserved for bicyclists. o Shared road - Do you drive and/or bike in Ithaca? Drive only, 12 (8%). Bike only, 10 (6%). Both drive and bike, 136 (86%). Neither, 0. Note: It is interesting to see that a majority of respondents are motorists and bicyclists. - If you are a cyclist, how would you describe yourself? A majority of people indicated that they were experienced bicyclists. Some indicated novice, intermediate, etc. 29

30 - Do you think Sharrows are useful markings that should be installed in other locations in Ithaca? Yes, 50%. No, 21%. Maybe or other, 29%. The graph below breaks the responses down by gender. Males responded both in greater favor and in greater opposition to the markings whereas females answered maybe/other about twice as often as males (see Graph 1). Many of the responses mention that standard bike lanes would be preferable to the Sharrow markings. Therefore, those opposed to the markings may be feeling that the question is between having Sharrows or having bike lanes; which is not the question at hand. Sharrows are not intended to be used as a replacement for bike lanes but rather to be used where bike lanes are not currently feasible or appropriate. Therefore, the responses in the graph below may indicate some level of opposition to Sharrows specifically, or may indicate a preference for bike lanes instead of Sharrows. Preferences by gender 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% In favor (Female) In favor (Male) Opposed (Female) Opposed (Male) Maybe (Female) Maybe (Male) Graph 1: Responses by gender regarding support for future Sharrow installations - Many people wrote-in additional comments in the final two boxes in the questionnaire. A sampling of the comments is listed below. o A true bike lane tells riders and drivers something about where to go. The sharrows provide no useful information. o I think it is an effective way to make drivers think about the possibility of bikes in the area which is a good thing. o Just more useless paint job on the road. o I think the sharrows markings help to educate both cyclists & motorists. I've had a motorist pull up next to me at a downtown stoplight and ask me why I'm riding in the lane instead of next to the shoulder (I tried my best to politely explain that I was going straight and the right-hand lane was for turning right). Markings like this would help. o I believe this would raise the awareness and maybe alertness of drivers of motor vehicles to bikes sharing the road. They should be on any road 30

31 designated as a bike route. Whether it should be on roads in general is another question. o who knows what sharrow mean? who knows what is the purpose of sharrows? w/o meaning or purpose, why bother? o As a cyclist, the sharrows make me feel safer while riding. I feel like motorists are more aware of my presence, and I have less fear of being doored. o I'm not sure that sharrows increase safety or cycling frequency, but I believe their visibility increases awareness of cycling and increases the perceived "right" of cyclists to use the streets o I applaud your interest in and commitment to helping young, novice, and "timid" cyclists negotiate the city's streets. You know us experienced riders will do what we want anyway. So please take care of the others who may benefit from "official" permission to ride in the roadway, etc. o I think the sharrows are great. I feel like they let motorists know that I have a right to be farther out in the lane. They're good in places where there isn't enough space for there to be separate space for bikes and cars. o If the markings helped control the behavior of errant cyclists, bring 'em on! Ithaca cyclists are difficult to drive alongside because they behave in wildly varying patterns (and non patterns.) o I'd never ride my bike in the streets of Ithaca... only in the parks. Drivers here are very unpredictable and don't make space for bikers. o It makes people think and talk about sharing the road. Even if people don't like them it gets them talking. I'd like more education or enforcement of traffic laws as applied to bikers. As a driver and cyclist it frustrates me when I see a cyclist that is not following the law and is being dangerous. o I believe they are very useful markings and have contributed to more bike/ car dialogue. I honestly believe they have contributed to a noticeable decrease in negative car behavior toward cyclists in town over the last year. I commute by bike on a regular basis. o If there are different interpretations of what the marking means, then it is not good - it should be unambiguous. o I would encourage their usage in conjunction with a very visible public education program about them and about bicycles & cars sharing the road together. o Good to raise awareness that cyclists are using the road, but I don't think anyone really knows what they mean o The more they are used, the more they will be understood, and the safer they will be. In the questionnaires, a number of people mentioned their desire to see more bike lanes in Ithaca. A sampling of responses relating to bike lanes is listed below. - Yes, but bike LANES with physical barriers between them and the car lanes would be *much* better because they are actually respected by motorists, whereas a sharrow is just a picture and most motorists don t take them seriously 31

32 - I worry that sending bikers down the middle of the road enrages drivers and threatens biker's safety. I'd prefer bike lanes for bikers separate from cars both moving and parked. - Ithaca needs to be even more bicycle friendly. It has ignored so many opportunities through the years to put in real bike lanes. - The sharrows are fine; but more importantly would be to create real, defined bike lines; and to maintain roads so that they were more bike-friendly (i.e. fixing huge potholes and missing pavement on the sides of the road, precisely where cyclists ride) - It is embarrassing that Ithaca is a haven of progressive environmental practice but has such weak bike lanes. Don't settle for anything less than real bike lines. - I think bike lanes with lines or shared roadway signs are more useful [than sharrows] and are have a more clear meaning. - Sharrows are ambiguous as to how the space is to be shared. Clearly-marked bicycle lanes such as the ones in European cities are much better because they are unambiguous. - It would be better for all involved if preferred bike routes (or better yet, lanes) were throughout the city. Not necessarily the routes most heavily traveled by vehicles. Analysis of questionnaire responses The key objectives of the questionnaire were to (1) estimate the degree to which people generally understood the meaning of the markings, and (2) to estimate the degree to which people thought that the markings provided a benefit to bicycle users. After analyzing the responses to the question What do you think the pavement marking in the photo means? it was found that 140 (86%) of 162 respondents accurately described one or more of the meanings associated with the pavement markings, 3 (less than 2%) respondents vaguely explained what the markings meant, 5 (3%) respondents indicated that they did not know what the markings meant, and 14 (9%) of respondents editorialized about other topics without answering the question directly. Overall, based on the questionnaire responses, it seems reasonable to estimate that 80% to 90% of people generally understand the purpose/meaning of the markings. Even if 10% to 20% of people do not understand the purpose/meaning of the markings, it is unlikely that a hazardous situation would result as no special rules or regulations are associated with the markings. Overall, the level of comprehension seems adequate, but not outstanding. To estimate the degree to which people thought that the markings provide a benefit to bicycle users, the responses to the question Do you think Sharrows are useful markings that should be installed in other locations in Ithaca? was used as a proxy. Based on the responses, discussed and graphed above, approximately 50% (81 responses) of respondents would like the markings to be considered for use in additional locations in Ithaca, presumably because they feel that it would be beneficial. Approximately 20% of respondents did not feel that the markings should be used because the markings were felt to be ineffective, confusing, they would rather see bike lanes installed, or some other reason. Approximately 30% of respondents did not indicate a definitive yes or no answer for various reasons such as they would prefer bike lanes, it would depend on the circumstances, and/or an educational campaign would need to accompany the future 32

33 installations. Of the 81 respondents supportive of the markings, only 22 (approx. 14% of all respondents) indicated strong support for the markings; the other 59 either did not write information that suggested their level of support, or they indicated that they felt that the markings were of only slight benefit. Overall, more respondents thought that the markings provided a benefit to bicycle users than those who did not think a benefit was provided. Installation recommendations prioritization and design elements The 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance and standards regarding the installation of Shared Lane Markings (see the excerpt from the MUTCD below). Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking Option 6 : The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. 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, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Guidance 7 : The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph. Standard 8 : Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. 6 Option. As stated in the MUTCD, an option is a statement of practice that is a permissive condition and carries no requirement or recommendation. Option statements sometime contain allowable modifications to a Standard or Guidance statement. All Option statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb may is typically used. The verbs shall and should are not used in Option statements. 7 Guidance. As stated in the MUTCD, guidance is a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb should is typically used. The verbs shall and may are not used in Guidance statements. Guidance statements are sometimes modified by Options. 8 Standard. As stated in the MUTCD, a standard is a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All Standard statements are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb shall is typically used. The verbs should and may are not used in Standard statements. Standard statements are sometimes modified by Options. Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study. 33

34 Guidance: If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter. Option: Section 9B.06 describes a Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign that may be used in addition to or instead of the Shared Lane Marking to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane. Prioritization Based on the MUTCD guidance above, Shared Lane Markings may technically be installed along virtually any street in the City of Ithaca. However, it would be inappropriate and prohibitively expensive to install the markings at every possible acceptable location. Therefore, some type of additional criteria should be established to help guide and prioritize the placement of the markings in the City of Ithaca based on the local context and resources. In general, there should be a distinct and obvious purpose associated with future applications of Shared Lane Markings in Ithaca. Suggested prioritization criteria: 1. In the downhill travel lane opposite an uphill bike lane 2. As wayfinding markings to guide bicyclists through a confusing route 3. At very specific locations where motorists and/or bicyclists need to be reminded where bicyclists should be positioned on the roadway 4. Where bike lanes would otherwise be desired, but are currently infeasible 1. SLM s in the downhill travel lane opposite an uphill bike lane Uphill bike lanes have been installed on portions of E. State St. and Hudson St., and are under investigation for other locations including: Mitchell St., Ithaca Rd., Lake St., University Ave., and Hector Street. The E. State St. uphill bike lane has been particularly beneficial in allowing bicyclists to travel at their own pace without feeling that they are impeding/annoying motorists, and allowing motorists to easily pass bicyclists without crossing the centerline. In these locations, bicyclists traveling in the downhill direction simply ride in the standard downhill travel lane. There is a concern that some downhill-traveling bicyclists may be tempted to ride the wrong way down the uphill bike lane, which is hazardous. The installation of SLM s in the downhill travel lane could encourage bicyclists to ride in the correct location and direction (see Figure 1). Similarly, there may be particular, relatively flat, locations where a bike lane could be appropriately installed along one side of the road and SLM s along the other 34

35 side to improve conditions for bicyclists where two bike lanes would otherwise be desired, yet insufficient street width is currently available. In any case, it seems intuitively inadvisable to have a bike facility in one direction of travel without a similar facility servicing the opposing direction as some bicyclists may be tempted to ride the wrong way in one of the directions. Finally, SLM s placed on a descending slope may need to be placed farther from the parking lane, or edge of road, to account for the greater maneuvering space needed for fastermoving bicyclists; likely the SLM s may be most appropriately placed in the center of the downhill travel lane in these cases. Figure 1: This simulated image shows how SLM s could be paired with the existing uphill bike lane (visible in upper left) along E. State St. 2. SLM s as wayfinding markings to guide bicyclists through a confusing route Under very specific conditions, the markings could be used to guide bicycle users through a confusing route or between disconnected bicycle facilities. In these instances, accompanying bike route signs should be considered. Special consideration should be given to turning locations as SLM s point straight ahead and, therefore, do not seem suitable where bicyclists are expected to turn. Presently, there are no particular locations in Ithaca being considered for this type of application. 3. SLM s at very specific locations where motorists and/or bicyclists need to be reminded where bicyclists should be positioned on the roadway In very specific locations, such as when a bike lane ends or where the rules are ambiguous, motorists and/or bicyclists may benefit from the installation SLM s to remind them of where bicyclists should most appropriately ride. In these specific instances, accompanying signs such as Bikes May Use Full Lane or Share the Road should be considered. Presently, there are no particular locations in Ithaca being considered for this type of application. 4. SLM s could be used where standard bike lanes would otherwise be desired, but are currently infeasible Though SLM s are not intended to be used as a substitute for standard bike lanes, SLM s can be appropriately used as an interim measure until the installation of bike lanes becomes feasible; such as when sufficient funding is available to widen the street or when it becomes publicly/politically acceptable to reduce on-street parking to permit bike lane installation. The experimental application along Cayuga St. is representative of this type of use. 35

36 Design elements In Progress Report 2, design elements were analyzed in detail. Based on that analysis, it is recommended that the following design issues be considered in subsequent SLM installations in Ithaca. 1. Where markings are to be installed near intersections, the markings should be at least 30 feet away from stop bars or marked (or unmarked) crosswalks. Where on-street parking terminates near intersections, the SLM s should not be placed beyond this termination (should not be in the no parking area). (See Figure 2) 2. Marking spacing of feet seems optimum and spacing up to about 300 feet seems satisfactory. 3. The MUTCD guidance indicating that the centerline of the SLM s should be at least 11 feet from the curb where on-street parking is permitted, seems appropriate. In the experiment, 11-6 was used, which seems appropriate as well. Greater distances may be warranted where higher bicycling speeds are anticipated, such as on downhill street segments. Figure 2: Many bicyclists will queue to the right of stopped motor vehicles at intersections, or may be positioned along the left or right of the lane preparing to turn. Therefore, it seems best to avoid placing SLM s within 30 feet of the approach to intersections. 4. SLM s, because of their forward-facing chevrons, do not seem appropriate at locations where bicyclists are expected to turn (such as where northbound bicyclists must turn right onto Green St. in the experiment). This limitation should be considered if future SLM s are to be used as wayfinding markings along routes with turns. Perhaps turn arrows or route signage should be considered in such cases. 5. In locations where it is anticipated that many breaks (up to 100 or so feet in length) in on-street parking will be present along a street marked with SLM s, the installation of a white lane line delineating the parking lane should be considered to discourage bicyclists from weaving around parked cars. In locations where long breaks (say, over 200 feet) in on-street parking are routinely anticipated, SLM s should probably not be used. Summary of project Overall, the City of Ithaca s experiment with Shared Lane Markings was successful. City staff gained a greater understanding of the design nuances associated with this marking and the public was exposed to this, now standard, marking. The presence of the markings initiated a valuable public discussion about rules and expectations regarding bicycle riding and motor vehicle driving behaviors; a discussion that indicated that there are conflicting views regarding proper behaviors though it seems generally understood that bicyclists have the right to use the road and are supposed to follow the rules of the road. It remains unclear whether the benefits of the SLM s justify the associated costs. The installation costs are rather low (about $250 per marking), but the expected benefits seem rather low as well. Members of the public who provided feedback regarding this 36

37 experiment had a broad range of opinions regarding the usefulness of this marking, including approximately 1/5 of respondents indicating that they felt that the markings should not be considered for future installations. Overall though, there seems to be sufficient public support of SLM s to encourage staff to consider additional installations of SLM s in Ithaca in the future. In regard to the experimental application along Cayuga St. in particular, project staff feel that the markings in some areas (generally south of Cascadilla St.) are of moderate utility and markings in other areas (generally north of Cascadilla St.) are of negligible utility. In the areas closer to the downtown core, on-street parking occupancy seems to be generally full enough to require bicyclists to share the standard travel lanes with motor vehicles, particularly at times of heavier traffic. In these locations, the application of the SLM s seems to be of moderate utility. In areas outside of the downtown core, particularly north of Cascadilla St., Cayuga St. is routinely devoid of parked cars in many of the on-street parking areas. This condition undermines the purposes of the pavement markings since most bicyclists will naturally ride in the parking lane (well away from the SLM s) when sufficient space is available. Better perhaps would be to consolidate lightly-used on-street parking to one side of the street and install standard bike lanes. In regard to observable behavior changes of bicyclists and motorists in the presence of SLM s, no significant changes have been observed by staff. That is not to say that no changes have occurred, but rather that the low volume of bicyclists (around 13 bicyclists per hour, on average) and the highly variable behaviors of bicyclists precluded project staff from obtaining data that would accurately indicate the degree to which behaviors changed. Additionally, it is unclear how many bicyclists were more inclined to travel on Cayuga St. because of the presence of SLM s, rather than on nearby streets. Staff considered collecting all-day video to analyze a larger number of bicyclists, but the anticipated staff time commitment was considered too great due to other workload responsibilities. One of the purposes of the markings is to encourage bicyclists to ride in the street rather than on the sidewalk. Some bicyclists continue to ride on the sidewalks along Cayuga St. despite the SLM s. Though some bicyclists have indicated that they feel that the SLM s have improved their level of safety, project staff have not obtained any data that suggests Figure 3: Despite the presence of the SLM s, some bicyclists that the level of safety has continue to disregard and/or misunderstand basic traffic rules. changed; there was not a history of bicycle safety problems along Cayuga St. prior to the experiment and no safety problems have surfaced since the experiment began. Though the experimental application of SLM s along Cayuga St. is in accordance with MUTCD standards, this particular type of application (along a long stretch of roadway) is likely not the best type of application in the City of Ithaca; mostly because the markings do not seem to relate to a specific condition in need of the markings. Future 37