As a cyclist and frequent train commuter, I have to concur. The northbound stretch of State Street between Water Street and George is really, truly awful and incredibly dangerous. It's pitch black at night as well -- I've blown my bicycle tires out more than once from the weird dents in the pavement here. Whatever those are supposed to be, I can't see them coming. It's only a matter of time before someone is hurt on this stretch of road -- I've stopped taking my bicycle on it entirely. I want dedicated bike lanes too (sharrows are useless in daytime downtown traffic and really contribute to the situations that PatRides is complaining about), but more than anything, I'd settle for decent street lighting on this block.

This issue was recategorized from Traffic/Road Safety to Signs / Bus Shelters / Pavement Markings.

When bicyclist stop riding off the sidewalk into traffic whenever they want I would support the community effort if it includes educating people how to properly ride a bike like a vehicle of traffic in the city. When a bike turns left at a mid street crosswalk, even while signaling, that's not how its done., .

The city of New Haven was the first city in CT to start using shared lane markings, in large part due to cycling advocates in the city who worked with the dept. to advocate for experimental use of the symbol - which was approved by the state. The first SLM routes were installed in 2010. Since that time, SLM's have been installed in areas of the city that generally could not accommodate bicycle lanes, due to narrow road and or lane widths.

Thanks for your response, DPT.

I think the intent of the original post and the ten of us who have voted for this post is to lodge a complaint against the use of sharrows in itself. Personally, I want to call attention to the fact that the sharrow is pretty much useless for making cyclists feel safe and protecting them on the road. San Diego is a notoroius abuser of the sharrow, for instance--rather than make tough decisions to install bike lanes and redistribute some much needed road space to cyclists, they simply sharrowed their city's bike network. To be honest, they are mostly a waste of paint. Their "experimental" (in CT anyhow) nature does not make up for the fact that it is the result of a lack of willingness on the part of the city to make tough decisions about making streets safer for cyclists, even when it requires taking away some space for motor vehicle lanes. State Street for instance would be fine with a buffered, separated bike lane and a single car lane.

Clearly you've never driven a car on state street around rush hour. Besides, most of State Street is one lane in each direction. The city official explained that there isn't enough space with the existing infrastructure to safely add a dedicated bike lane. I suggest you make the one block journey over to Orange street and stop whining.

The sharrow's purpose is to alert drivers that cyclists are likely to be on the road and should therefore watch out for them. They are placed on routes that are often used by cyclists. The placement of sharrows was done in coordination with cycling advocates, through meetings of proposed routes to the actual installation of those routes. Your opinion is welcome and encouraged. Please understand that the use of sharrows was and still is a foundational aspect to more advanced road markings in support of bicycle infrastructure. Sharrows helped to improve upon cycling infrastructure in the city. The department is always looking at ways to improve upon the existing infrastructure. Looking at it from that approach may change your thinking on their usefulness.

To the DPT official, you write: "Please understand that the use of sharrows was and still is a foundational aspect to more advanced road markings in support of bicycle infrastructure." By this are you suggesting that sharrows are a stepping stone to better infrastructure? I know its hard to commit to that, but I'm just curious if that is part of what you're implying.

Sure, sharrows are maybe better than nothing. But the real test of whether they are effective is whether it gets more folks biking the routes made with sharrows. Do sharrows on busy, unsafe streets with fast moving traffic (say Chapel Streeet all throughout downtown and Wooster Square) help any cyclists or help to get more cyclists on the road beyond those who are already super-confident and able to bike very fast? Take State St. for instance. Instead of using that stenciled route just to get to my office at Wall and Church, I bike up that stump of Orange Street that is an on-ramp, past the police station, get in the wrong lane to get up on the sidewalk and ride the sidewalk along the freeway stub to get over to Church St. At Church I wait awhile to get the pedestrian signal and then get up onto Church St and bike Church the rest of the way to work (Church has so many traffic lanes on it I usually feel safe -- it should have a bike lane, there's no need for that many traffic lanes). So instead of taking the supposedly improved, sharrowed route on State I do that illegal, irritating work around because all in all it feels safer an I don't have to go up hill with an aggressive CT motorist charging up my rear with the hope that the shared-lane marking with cool their temper. And I have thousands of miles of riding experience and have been a cyclist for 15 years.

That's the test of whether sharrows are any good on certain streets I think--will people actually use them? Will they make cycling more appealing to more folks so the city isn't so choked with fast-moving unsafe traffic? A sharrow by itself without effect is not worthwhile.

That's the last I'll say--at some level I know we just have a difference of opinion and I know that sharrows are new to CT and it might take some time for their inefficacy to sink in.

Thanks for your replies.

This issue is being moved to the Other category to allow for further discussion.

This issue was recategorized from Signs / Bus Shelters / Pavement Markings to Other.

We are trying to delineate issues that are current and need the city's attention to resolve. Any issues prior to 2013 are being closed. If your issue remains and needs to be addressed by the city, please either re-open or open as a new See Click Fix issue. Thanks.