[bikepedantic]

As of last weekend, most stuff was now 30-40% off

[bikepedantic]

@dasgeh 125845 wrote:

Did anyone make it to last night’s meeting? Any report?

Thanks

Dennis Leach gave a very good presentation about the revised striping plan, why they did the revisions, they showed a VSSIM computer animation of operations, and talked about proposed transit-exclusive hours and enforcement. I didn’t hear any complaints, or even pointed questions, about the revised cross-section of the striping plan, and several of us spoke up with much praise for the quick and responsive work to revise the plans. Milling is scheduled to begin tonight in the northern section, so here’s hoping…

OT – proposed transit exclusive hours for the transitway are going to be only 3 hours for each of the morning and evening peaks. Crowd seemed a bit split on that

[bikepedantic]

Update – Apparently, DES has a revised proposed restriping plan for Crystal Drive. Unclear if this means a reprieve for the northbound bike lane, but we’ll all find out next week https://twitter.com/ArlingtonDES/status/649953739562975232

[bikepedantic]

Thanks for the heads-up! Naturally, i have a competing work obligation, but here’s a list of questions I sent DES and the County Board:

*Why can’t the planned part-time bus lane be designated within the existing pavement-marking cross-section?

*Why does DES designate the bus lane to be part time in the off-peak, when capacity for motor vehicles is needed the least?

*Why does the September 2015 project analysis go into great detail about how the redesign is still appropriate from a congestion standpoint, but makes no mention of whether or not a bike lane deletion is still appropriate?

*Are the lane widenings still justified, given stagnant Crystal City occupancy and traffic volumes in the intervening five years?

*With Arlington seemingly done with streetcar planning, will a transit lane still need to run curbside?

*At what point does design begin on a replacement facility for bicyclists to travel north through Crystal City to get to the Mt Vernon Trail?

*Did you know that 184,000 bicycle trips per year travel through the Crystal City spur to the Mt. Vernon Trail?

*Why did DES not address the loss of a bicycle travel lane in its documented Categorical Exclusion submittal?

[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.

[bikepedantic]

@lordofthemark 124321 wrote:

Wait the the 23 foot sidewalk includes space for trees, and sidewalk cafes, right? It isn’t really a 23 foot side walk. Because if it were I am sure that less confident cyclists will take it. In fact, I am guessing that even with the trees and cafes, a bunch of people on bikes will end up taking it.

I mean unless Crystal City recovers and grows to the point where a wide sidewalk is absolutely filled with pedestrians, a la Manhattan. But I’ve already spent two days praying for messiah to come.

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

[bikepedantic]

@consularrider 124314 wrote:

So, on the general topic, I never found the bike lanes on Crystal Drive to be particularly useful and am generally “taking the lane” through that area or riding the service road back way from the Crystal City connector at the Water Park to 26th St.

They aren’t great lanes. But they’re what we have, and the only facility my wife will use. None of the other bike solutions in the area appear anywhere close to being installed, and none of them connect to the Crystal City Connector/MVT.

But more importantly, DES is removing an existing bikelane, and not to make way for something better. That’s a bad precedent in itself, normally seen only under the leadership of the Rob Fords of the world. It’s a bikelane that leads directly to one of the busiest trails in the region. But also, they’re doing it quietly, without considering impacts at all, examining alternatives, or providing any immediate mitigations. Take a look at the slides describing the proposed restriping: https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/09/DES-Crystal_Drive_Proposed_Restriping_and_Repaving_Plan_Sept_2015.pdf

Even if you agree that biking in a part-time bus lane is an acceptable substitute (i definitely don’t, but did anyone ask?), you can’t look at this action and feel great about your preferred neighborhood bike facility. Unlike the sophisticated analysis that went into turning a vehicle lane into the bus lane, there was no apparent consideration given to the existing bike lane. It’s just going away. Not even to make space for the bus lane, it is so all the other existing lanes can be widened.

Moral of the story: If a study will cover a street with a bikelane, you can’t assume like i did that your existing bikelane will be granted the same bias toward the status-quo as other modes.

[Author]

Posts