<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sharrows?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows</link>
	<description>Providence Bicycle Coalition (PBC)</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows/#comment-263</guid>
		<description>Thanks Eric, I'm breathing easier on this end ;)  The sharrow symbol is on page 398 of the doc I linked to.  So now we just need to wait until they are approved and we can start working to convince the city they would be great to adopt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Eric, I&#8217;m breathing easier on this end <img src='http://bikeprovidence.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  The sharrow symbol is on page 398 of the doc I linked to.  So now we just need to wait until they are approved and we can start working to convince the city they would be great to adopt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows#comment-262</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows/#comment-262</guid>
		<description>The current draft of the proposed 2008 version of the MUTCD does indeed include sharrows.  See pg 1127 (ch. 9, section 9C.07).  The version you link to does not include graphics; the version with graphics included also shows figure 9C-9 "Shared Lane Marking".  I'd be happy to share the graphics version with anyone who emails me (eric@greenway.org).  Huzzah!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The current draft of the proposed 2008 version of the MUTCD does indeed include sharrows.  See pg 1127 (ch. 9, section 9C.07).  The version you link to does not include graphics; the version with graphics included also shows figure 9C-9 &#8220;Shared Lane Marking&#8221;.  I&#8217;d be happy to share the graphics version with anyone who emails me (eric@greenway.org).  Huzzah!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Barta</title>
		<link>http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows#comment-261</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Barta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeprovidence.org/2008/03/02/sharrows/#comment-261</guid>
		<description>By law, bikes belong in the right 1/3 of the travel lane, not the filthy, unkept shoulder full of glass, grates, metal and sand. Sharrows, unfortunately, are often placed in the gutter. Only slow moving cyclists are obliged to squeeze right to let vehicles pass, not ones doing the speed limit. This is why the shoulder is important. It acts as a safety valve. Roads where the shoulder is compromised (broken, missing, piled with debris or snow) constitute an illegal ban on bicycling. 

Shoulders cannot be used to add motoring lanes or designate bike lanes. Cities and towns may only add a lane when entire road can be widened, which means buildings or homes are seized by eminent domain or parking is eliminated. Often a better solution can be to convert parallel roads into one-way thoroughfares in either direction, which preserves safety for all roadway users. But macro-engineering is necessary to understand what's causing traffic increase. 

In RI, it's obvious that traffic bunches at natural obstacles, particularly coves, estuaries, ponds and rivers that aren't adequately bridged. Many of the State's worst pinch points come where traffic is thereby forced together, such as Apponaug and Hoxie. Also, airport and train surrounds cut off all flow except motoring in a discriminatory way.

Sure, bring on the sharrows, but use them to make complete routes that don't simply stop, like the sign in Governor Francis that reads "Bicycle Route Ends" just shy of Hoxie, when a cheap culvert covered span on Landsdowne St could connect cyclists to the Bike lanes on West Shore Rd. Designating some reasonable percentage of transportation dollars to bicycling infrastructure will preserve roadways better than any other paln. Adding motoring lanes just encourages more traffic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By law, bikes belong in the right 1/3 of the travel lane, not the filthy, unkept shoulder full of glass, grates, metal and sand. Sharrows, unfortunately, are often placed in the gutter. Only slow moving cyclists are obliged to squeeze right to let vehicles pass, not ones doing the speed limit. This is why the shoulder is important. It acts as a safety valve. Roads where the shoulder is compromised (broken, missing, piled with debris or snow) constitute an illegal ban on bicycling. </p>
<p>Shoulders cannot be used to add motoring lanes or designate bike lanes. Cities and towns may only add a lane when entire road can be widened, which means buildings or homes are seized by eminent domain or parking is eliminated. Often a better solution can be to convert parallel roads into one-way thoroughfares in either direction, which preserves safety for all roadway users. But macro-engineering is necessary to understand what&#8217;s causing traffic increase. </p>
<p>In RI, it&#8217;s obvious that traffic bunches at natural obstacles, particularly coves, estuaries, ponds and rivers that aren&#8217;t adequately bridged. Many of the State&#8217;s worst pinch points come where traffic is thereby forced together, such as Apponaug and Hoxie. Also, airport and train surrounds cut off all flow except motoring in a discriminatory way.</p>
<p>Sure, bring on the sharrows, but use them to make complete routes that don&#8217;t simply stop, like the sign in Governor Francis that reads &#8220;Bicycle Route Ends&#8221; just shy of Hoxie, when a cheap culvert covered span on Landsdowne St could connect cyclists to the Bike lanes on West Shore Rd. Designating some reasonable percentage of transportation dollars to bicycling infrastructure will preserve roadways better than any other paln. Adding motoring lanes just encourages more traffic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
