|
A presentation (.PDF) discussing the placement of the shared roadway marking in various roadway scenarios was made at the Pro Walk Pro Bike conference in Seattle in September 2008.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the Shared Roadway Marking
Bicycle Plan Implementation - Month 1 Sharrow locations
Last updated 11.23.2009 |
|
Street |
From |
To |
One-way? |
Route No. |
Dist (Mi) |
~ QTY |
District |
5th St |
Market |
Townsend |
|
75 |
0.84 |
74 |
6 |
20th Ave |
Sloat |
Eucalyptus |
|
75 |
0.24 |
8 |
7 |
20th Ave |
Wawona |
Lincoln |
|
75 |
1.90 |
60 |
4 |
23rd Ave |
Fulton |
Lake |
|
19 |
0.91 |
30 |
1 |
Battery |
Market |
Clay |
Yes |
11 |
0.30 |
13 |
3 |
Clay |
Montgomery |
Battery |
Yes |
11 |
0.16 |
6 |
3 |
Fulton |
23rd Ave |
22nd Ave |
|
75 |
0.06 |
4 |
1 |
Geneva |
Ocean |
Alemany |
|
90 |
0.67 |
38 |
11 |
Greenwich |
Lyon |
Octavia |
|
6 |
0.98 |
44 |
2 |
Grove |
Octavia |
Van Ness |
|
20 |
0.28 |
12 |
5,6 |
Hayes |
Baker |
Scott |
|
30 |
0.28 |
12 |
5 |
Indiana |
Mariposa |
Cesar Chavez |
|
7 |
0.97 |
32 |
10 |
Mariposa |
Mississippi |
Illinois |
|
7 and 23 |
0.37 |
27 |
10 |
Mission |
South Van Ness |
11th St |
|
30 |
0.12 |
3 |
6 |
Montgomery |
Clay |
Washington |
Yes |
11 |
0.07 |
2 |
3 |
Sanchez |
Duboce |
16th St |
|
47 |
0.34 |
17 |
8 |
Sansome |
Sutter |
Washington |
|
11 |
0.38 |
34 |
3 |
Washington |
Montgomery |
Sansome |
Yes |
11 |
0.10 |
4 |
3 |
Wawona |
21st Ave |
20th Ave |
|
75 |
0.06 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
TOTALS |
|
9.03 |
424 |
|
| Bicycle Plan Implementation - Month 2 Sharrow locations
Last updated 12.3.2009 |
Street |
From |
To |
One-way? |
Route No. |
Dist (Mi) |
~ QTY |
District |
10th St |
Market |
Howard |
Yes |
25 |
0.24 |
8 |
6 |
22nd St |
Chattanooga |
Potrero |
|
44 |
1.10 |
75 |
8,9 |
34th Ave |
Clement |
Cabrillo |
|
85 |
0.52 |
16 |
1 |
3rd St |
Townsend |
China Basin |
|
5 |
0.24 |
10 |
6 |
Ashbury |
Oak |
Clayton |
|
55 |
0.65 |
24 |
5,8 |
Baker |
Fell |
Page |
|
51 |
0.13 |
8 |
5 |
Chattanooga |
22nd St |
Jersey |
|
44 |
0.28 |
12 |
8 |
Church |
Hermann |
Duboce |
|
345 |
0.06 |
4 |
8 |
Circular |
Hearst |
Diamond |
|
70 |
0.27 |
6 |
8,11 |
Clayton |
Oak |
Waller |
|
55 |
0.20 |
12 |
5 |
Diamond |
Chenery |
Monterey |
|
70 |
0.14 |
8 |
8 |
Downey |
Waller |
Ashbury |
Yes |
55 |
0.37 |
10 |
5 |
Gennessee |
Monterey |
Judson |
|
70 |
0.22 |
16 |
7 |
Grant |
Post |
Sutter |
Yes |
17 |
0.06 |
4 |
3 |
Hearst |
Gennessee |
Circular |
|
70 |
0.68 |
22 |
7,8,11 |
Hermann |
Webster |
Church |
|
345 |
0.05 |
4 |
8 |
Judson |
Gennessee |
Phelan |
|
770 |
0.07 |
4 |
7 |
Kansas |
Division |
16th St |
|
123 |
0.26 |
12 |
10 |
Laguna |
McAllister |
Fulton |
|
20 |
0.06 |
4 |
5 |
Larkin |
Grove |
Market |
Yes |
25 |
0.08 |
4 |
6 |
Larkin |
McAllister |
Grove |
|
25 |
0.13 |
8 |
6 |
Lyon |
Lombard |
Greenwich |
|
6 |
0.07 |
4 |
2 |
Mission |
Steuart |
Embarcadero |
|
50 |
0.05 |
4 |
3,6 |
Parker |
Turk |
Golden Gate |
|
20 |
0.07 |
4 |
1 |
Steuart |
Market |
Mission |
|
50 |
0.12 |
4 |
3,6 |
Stockton |
Post |
Bush |
|
17 |
0.13 |
8 |
3 |
Stockton |
Sacramento |
Broadway |
|
17 |
0.31 |
20 |
3 |
Sutter |
Steiner |
Gough |
|
16 |
0.64 |
28 |
2,3 |
Sutter |
Gough |
Market |
Yes |
16 |
1.30 |
30 |
2,5 |
Waller |
Clayton |
Ashbury |
|
55 |
0.09 |
4 |
5 |
Webster |
Grove |
Hermann |
|
345 |
0.46 |
28 |
5,8 |
|
|
|
TOTALS |
|
9.05 |
405 |
|
At their August 2004 meeting, the California Traffic Control Device Committee(CTCDC) recommended that Caltrans adopt the "bike + chevron" shared roadway marking for inclusion in the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement . This decision was based on a report prepared by Alta Planning + Design for the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic's Bicycle Program which presents the findings of a study evaluating the effectiveness of two pavement markings for use on Class III (signed/shared) bikeways. On September 12, 2005, Caltrans adopted Traffic Operations Directive Policy 05-10 which incorporates the Shared Roadway Marking into the 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement
SF Concerns with Approved Language in CA MUTCD: While San Francisco is pleased to see the Shared Roadway Marking approved as an official traffic control device for the state of California, some changes were made to the language controlling the use of the marking that we believe should be revisited. The letter to the California Traffic Control Device Committee and Caltrans (PDF) outlines our concerns with language that limits the use of the marking to where there is parallel parking.
San Francisco supports the current language proposed for the next revision of the national MUTCD.
Report: "San Francisco's Shared Roadway Pavement Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety" (.PDF)
To View Figure of Marking and CA Guidance for Installation:Traffic Operations Directive Policy 05-10
Marking in the News: Christian Science Monitor
Questions or comments:
SF Sharrow Report: Mia Birk of Alta Planning + Design at MiaBirk@altaplanning.com 503-230-9862.
Roadway pavement markings or CTCDC approval: Mike Sallaberry of the MTA at mike.sallaberry@sfmta.com or 415 701-4563.
PDF (Portable Document Files) on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing. The Reader is available for free download; we suggest that you choose the full version over the basic version as it includes PDF accessibility features and a text search. You may also e-mail the Webmaster if you are having accessibility issues with a .PDF file on this site. We will do our best to provide an alternative format.
Explore:
|
