Arlington Plans to Remove Bike Lane on Crystal Drive

[lordofthemark]

@bikepedantic 124325 wrote:

There are no 23 foot sidewalks now, i believe that’s their plannery aspirational view of some future streetscape. This 6-8′ paver sidewalk is typical today: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8577304,-77.0491279,3a,75y,9.16h,74.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRLLAm1iml5kTXdQYGRqfyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And note the person on a bike riding the sidewalk in that picture!

I am not suggesting that sidewalk riding is a good alternative, especially if there is a push to ban it (though I also imagine the times when it is most a problem are the times when the bus lanes will be operational – which suggests a compromise) I do recall, from the CSG tour of Crystal City, someone mentioning that the goal was a NB lane on Clark/Bell and SB on Crystal. So this is not really new, is it? I guess perhaps it was assumed that from the time the metroway opened, until Clark/Bell was done the transit lane would remain closed to general traffic 24/7? Also that Clark/Bell would be done very soon?

[lordofthemark]

The transit way lane would be reserved for buses and bikes during morning and evening rush (the exact hours are still being determined, but potentially 5am-10am and 3pm-8pm)

BTW Metroway buses operate from 5:30AM to 10PM, M-Th, and till midnight on Friday, as well as from 6:30 AM to midnight on Saturday, and 7:30 to 10PM on Sunday. It seems odd to me that they do not get the lane the entire time they are in operation, which could impact the Metroway brand, which is supposed to be mostly in dedicated ROW. In Alexandria, AFAIK, the dedicated transit lanes on Rte 1 are transit only 24/7. Arlington surely does not want to be less transit friendly than the City of Alexandria?

I would say at the very minimum private motor vehicles should be excluded during the hours of Metroway operation. That will satisfy most cyclist needs, especially during the times when sidewalk riding is most problematic.

Though I would also note that excluding private motor vehicles 24/7 would simply signage and motorist education.

[scoot]

@chris_s 124269 wrote:

1) Drop to a 7′ parking lane, 10′ travel lanes, 10′ turning lane, 11′ transit lane and BAM there’s 5′ for a Northbound bike lane.

This is a more general question, but it applies to your first suggestion.

Is 15′ (10′ travel lane plus 5′ bike lane) enough space for a vehicle to safely pass a bike without using the turning lane?

IIUC, the general rule for lane widths is that any single lane less than 14 feet is too narrow for a bike and a motor vehicle side by side, and riders are thus advised to take the full lane whenever it is less than 14′. But that rule only applies where there are no parked cars. Parked cars will render the rightmost 5′ useless, so bikes will not be safe from dooring anywhere to the right of the white line between the general and bike lane. But riding on that line invites very close passes from drivers who are afraid of yellow lines.

Seems to me that wherever the right boundary is adjacent to car doors, anything less than about 16′-17′ total should be marked as a sharrows, not a vehicle + bike lane. Is there an official guideline for this?

[chris_s]

@scoot 124342 wrote:

Parked cars will render the rightmost 5′ useless

In a typical row of parked cars, 10′ is a safe assumption for how far an open car door will protrude from the curb. Typical parking lanes in Arlington are 7 to 8′ so the whole 5′ isn’t door-zone, but the majority of it is.

@scoot 124342 wrote:

Seems to me that wherever the right boundary is adjacent to car doors, anything less than about 16′-17′ total should be marked as a sharrows, not a vehicle + bike lane. Is there an official guideline for this?

This is a tough judgement call. A lot of people will ride bike lanes, even door-zone bike lanes much more happily than they will sharrows. Does the increased safety that comes from the increase in # of cyclists negate the decreased safety of having folks riding in the door zone?

@scoot 124342 wrote:

This is a more general question, but it applies to your first suggestion.

It doesn’t really apply to my first suggestion, because a NB bike lane would not be adjacent to parked cars. It’s perhaps worth creating a new thread if people want to explore this more generalized topic in any more detail so as to leave this one for talk of Crystal Drive specifically.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 124342 wrote:

This is a more general question, but it applies to your first suggestion.

Is 15′ (10′ travel lane plus 5′ bike lane) enough space for a vehicle to safely pass a bike without using the turning lane?

IIUC, the general rule for lane widths is that any single lane less than 14 feet is too narrow for a bike and a motor vehicle side by side, and riders are thus advised to take the full lane whenever it is less than 14′. But that rule only applies where there are no parked cars. Parked cars will render the rightmost 5′ useless, so bikes will not be safe from dooring anywhere to the right of the white line between the general and bike lane. But riding on that line invites very close passes from drivers who are afraid of yellow lines.

Seems to me that wherever the right boundary is adjacent to car doors, anything less than about 16′-17′ total should be marked as a sharrows, not a vehicle + bike lane. Is there an official guideline for this?

I don’t think car doors are 5′ wide. I would say the 2-3′ adjacent to parked cars is useless. Bikes are 2-3′ wide. VA law requires 3′ to pass, but also allows cars passing bikes to cross into other lanes when safe.

But you’ve hit on my problem will painted bike lanes — it seems to me that there needs to be at least 7′ between the edge of a parked car (i.e. the edge of its mirror) and the edge of a moving car. While in theory cars can cross the line to pass, in reality, many don’t, and instead violate the 3′ passing law. In my experience, I am passed closely more often when I’m in a bike lane, and I can see how uneducated drivers think “but as long as I’m in my lane and they’re in theirs, we’re fine”. They are wrong, but I believe it is common thinking. And unfortunately, neither the Police nor the County is doing anything about it. *sigh*

Plus, I don’t think painted bike lanes convince many “new” riders that it’s safe to bike. So I have a hard time spending lots of capital fighting for painted bike lanes.

There’s also the issue here that this plan is laid out in the Crystal City Sector Plan. The BAC and the public got chances to comment on that plan. I remember this coming to the BAC when I was a relatively new member. I remember thinking the whole plan kinda sucked for bikes, but noting that other people didn’t seem very bothered by it. In fact, the discussion I remember focused on passing under Rte 1. This was also 2009-2010, when things like protected bike lanes and cycletracks were not as prominent as they are now. This isn’t to lay blame on anyone — in fact, it highlights the problem with long-term planning in a time of change. On the one hand, we have better tools and higher standards now and we want new infrastructure built to those standards with those tools. On the other hand, there was a public process, and if we start undermining public processes, we devalue the planning process generally. That makes it less valuable. We are going to eventually update the Bike Element of the MTP, and we don’t want people to be able to attach individual projects that fit the plan each time because “the plan is old”.

And finally, the longer-term parts of the sector plan are premised on Streetcar, which isn’t going to happen. So the plan will have to be updated, and we’ll get a shot at the apple then, which will still respect the planning process generally.

However, looking at the sector plan, it’s implied that the marked bus/bike lane will be 24/7. So I think we can appropriately ask for it to be 24/7, especially given the fact that there is no other nb bike route right now. We should be able to get the transit and pedestrian folks on board with that plan too. (It’s good for transit and it means fewer bikes on the sidewalk).

[scoot]

@chris_s 124343 wrote:

It doesn’t really apply to my first suggestion, because a NB bike lane would not be adjacent to parked cars. It’s perhaps worth creating a new thread if people want to explore this more generalized topic in any more detail so as to leave this one for talk of Crystal Drive specifically.

Sorry for the confusion. I was actually thinking about the southbound bike lane (15′ between yellow line and parked cars) when I wrote that.

I agree it would be preferable to start a new thread. I’ll do that with my original question. Can the moderators copy the responses in?

[CaseyKane50]

The proposed redesign seems to not have allowed for space for shuttle buses to sit and idle. Today, they occupy the bike lanes, surely they won’t be allowed to block a lane reserved for motorized vehicles.

If in fact the proposed design goes through, Arlington should at least reduce the speed limit on Crystal Drive from the current 30 MPH to 25 MPH.

[S. Arlington Observer]

This seems like a travesty, but at least keeping the bus lanes car free 24/7 seems viable. Who should we write? I know the County Board is an obvious place to start. But who, in which County department, should also receive feedback?

This only marginally affects me personally as I use Eads Street to go north to 18th and the water park (where I board a bus.) I am on Crystal Drive for only a block. But it is simply wrong to take away a bike lane and regress like this. It’s bad enough to take away a bike lane for another form of non auto transportation. But to hand it over to automobiles? I don’t understand how County planners can so obviously miss the hypocrisy and PR issues involved. Car Free diet indeed.

[Kitty]

Oh man, I use those bike lanes in Crystal City all the time! Now that there is that nice Potomac Trail from Braddock through Potomac Yard and up to Crystal City I use those as my primary means to connect back to the MVT.

The idea of sharing the lane with those transit buses without the safety (at least in my head) of a bike lane to demarcate “bike goes here” and “bus goes there” is horrifying.

[dasgeh]

@S. Arlington Observer 124358 wrote:

This seems like a travesty, but at least keeping the bus lanes car free 24/7 seems viable. Who should we write? I know the County Board is an obvious place to start. But who, in which County department, should also receive feedback?

This only marginally affects me personally as I use Eads Street to go north to 18th and the water park (where I board a bus.) I am on Crystal Drive for only a block. But it is simply wrong to take away a bike lane and regress like this. It’s bad enough to take away a bike lane for another form of non auto transportation. But to hand it over to automobiles? I don’t understand how County planners can so obviously miss the hypocrisy and PR issues involved. Car Free diet indeed.

First post:
@chris_s 124251 wrote:

Feel free to express any thoughts you have to des@arlingtonva.us and countyboard@arlingtonva.us

[S. Arlington Observer]

@dasgeh 124368 wrote:

First post:

Sometimes that gets lost in all the follow up conversations. I should have seen that. Thanks for the reminder. Messages going out today.

[PotomacCyclist]

@CaseyKane50 124357 wrote:

The proposed redesign seems to not have allowed for space for shuttle buses to sit and idle. Today, they occupy the bike lanes, surely they won’t be allowed to block a lane reserved for motorized vehicles.

If in fact the proposed design goes through, Arlington should at least reduce the speed limit on Crystal Drive from the current 30 MPH to 25 MPH.

I thought they were moving the shuttle buses over to the Interim Multimodal Center, which is being built on 18th St. next to the Metro entrance.

[bikepedantic]

@dasgeh 124344 wrote:

There’s also the issue here that this plan is laid out in the Crystal City Sector Plan. The BAC and the public got chances to comment on that plan. I remember this coming to the BAC when I was a relatively new member. I remember thinking the whole plan kinda sucked for bikes, but noting that other people didn’t seem very bothered by it. In fact, the discussion I remember focused on passing under Rte 1. This was also 2009-2010, when things like protected bike lanes and cycletracks were not as prominent as they are now. This isn’t to lay blame on anyone — in fact, it highlights the problem with long-term planning in a time of change.

I just had a moment of deja vu, realizing i might have been at that meeting. I’ve definitely gotten ranty about the lack of progress on east-west connections, such as the 18th St ones included in the sector plan. I still think that there’s very little explicit in the archive materials or plan itself that states that deleting a bikelane was a part of their plan, i definitely had no inkling of it.

@dasgeh 124344 wrote:

On the one hand, we have better tools and higher standards now and we want new infrastructure built to those standards with those tools. On the other hand, there was a public process, and if we start undermining public processes, we devalue the planning process generally. That makes it less valuable. We are going to eventually update the Bike Element of the MTP, and we don’t want people to be able to attach individual projects that fit the plan each time because “the plan is old”.

to some extent, I disagree. Broad planning exercises like these are always qualified as being a framework, wherein the individual projects to implement are still subject to the planning, impact assessment, alternatives analysis, public outreach, and design constraints of when they’re developed. In this context, we have an individual project (eliminating a bikelane to make room for wider vehicle lanes) that might (emphasize might) no longer make sense with 5 years of stable VMT (instead of the growth forecasted in the plan), stagnant occupancy, growth in bicycling, and the lack of progress on the alternative routes (east-west or the Bell-Clark PBL) that would maintain the connection to the MVT. Point being, arguably the core part of the sector plan and subsequent NEPA documentation re Crystal Dr was designating a bus lane, and given the contemporary circumstances, DES ought to be examining whether or not that core feature can be provided while maintaining the existing bikelane.

The presentation on the restriping provides an example of this – contemporary vehicle-per-lane, speed, etc data is analyzed, run through a simulation, and presented to justify converting a general purpose lane to transit lane, in order to reaffirm that the plan still conforms to today’s on-the-ground reality. https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/09/DES-Crystal_Drive_Proposed_Restriping_and_Repaving_Plan_Sept_2015.pdf

@dasgeh 124344 wrote:

And finally, the longer-term parts of the sector plan are premised on Streetcar, which isn’t going to happen. So the plan will have to be updated, and we’ll get a shot at the apple then, which will still respect the planning process generally.

while the plan isn’t explicit about the need to have curbside free for streetcar access, I do think this is another good example of a contemporary condition that makes eliminating the Crystal Dr bikelane more unnecessary in 2015 than in 2010, and worthy of reexamination of the concept design

@dasgeh 124344 wrote:

However, looking at the sector plan, it’s implied that the marked bus/bike lane will be 24/7. So I think we can appropriately ask for it to be 24/7, especially given the fact that there is no other nb bike route right now. We should be able to get the transit and pedestrian folks on board with that plan too. (It’s good for transit and it means fewer bikes on the sidewalk).

Agree. My family and I are far less likely to use this route without a bikelane, but this is another great example of a condition probably contemplated by the plan, but having a pretty adverse impact on today’s implementation.

[BTC_DC]

The opposite side of the block (S. Clarke St.) is a one way road south bound, I believe. Seems reasonable to make Crystal Dr. one way in the opposite direction (northbound), keep a bike lane and auto parking (to placate local businesses), and add the dedicated bus lane.

Could the south bound bike lane not be relocated to S. Clarke st.? Those current south bound bike lanes on Crystal dr. aren’t the best in any event.

12th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, and 26th streets provide plenty of cut throughs. This should benefit auto traffic as well since no need to wait for oncoming traffic for making left turns from Crystal Dr.

[dasgeh]

If you have 3′ extra, why not flip the so bike lane and make it protected? In the sector plan the nb lane might be protected.

Alternatively, if you could get an extra 5′ for a nb bike lane, where would you put it? Against the curb and all the bus stops?

[Author]

Posts