Advocacy & Safety - Nightmare Bike lane RVA

Okay, for starters, I'd rather this thread doesn't deteriorate into a discussion of bike lanes in general-- I want it about this specific bike lane. So please, take your generalized rants to another thread; you've plenty of 'em. The lane is located on Hermitage Road in Richmond Virginia, proceeding North. It runs behind the Diamond (home of the Richmond Braves), by the Commonwealth's ABC HQ, and under the interstates 64/95 (at this point, the same road). For the record, I'm agnostic on the BL debate; I ride 'em when they are well designed and safe, but can live without them. I understand well designed ones can make some cyclists feel safer. The lane in question is pictured below.

It appears to be quite possibly the worst bike lane ever; if anyone can produce a worse one, I'd like to see it. After running on Hermitage, sometimes with as little as 12" of usable pavement (not kidding), it then, in front of the ABC HQ, reduces to simply the gutter, a wide, though broken up span of concrete. The pictures do not do it justice; it was raining today and many of the worst ruts are filled in with water.

At the next intersection, it remains, but right of a right turn only lane. Cyclists proceeding straight risk a right hook should they stay in the bike lane. Across the street the lane runs alongside street parking, creating a wonderful door zone. The parking here is usually short in term, as state employees park there to use the credit union across the street, so it's a constant parade of opening car doors, plus cars going over the lane to park.

The kicker is this-- the lane then runs under 64/95. On the far side of the underpass, a ramp exit from 64/95 empties out into the street. Should the cyclist stay in the lane on the right, both the cyclist proceeding down Hermitage and the motorist exiting onto Hermitage from 64/95 have severely limited vision, and a brief time to react to one another's presence. See the below photos for what a motorist sees in this situation. The proper (really only) way to do this stretch is to take the lane, widening the visual angles for both cyclist and motorist; the bike lane shortens these angles and creates a dangerous situation for the cyclist.

I don't think even the most irrational BL advocate can argue for this lane. I have contacted the city works department; I've said I would like to meet the engineer who designed this, to take him on a bike ride down it. They have not returned my call, and should I not recieve a call by Monday, I intend to call my city councilour and the Mayor and offer them a ride down this disaster. Failing that, my next option is a letter to the editor and contacting local advocacy groups.

I'm open to further suggestions and insight on dealing with this lane. I ride this road daily; as presently constructed, this lane is both unusable and dangerous. I'd like to keep my discussions with any representatives of the city both calm and rational, so I'd like this thread to remain so. Certainly, if you think I'm wrong and that this is a highlight of BL design, please tell me so (and please tell me why. I can't fathom an argument for this one). There are a number of other problems with the design of these lanes, but these are the major ones.

I wouldn't have even realised the first four pictures were of a bike lane. As to the bridge - why doesn't the bike lane just go under the extra span - and why the heck is there an open one?

I'll have to take some pictures of our bike lane. I just use the road.

That's a gutter pan, not a bike lane! They never should have striped a bike lane there in the first place. Keep after them!

Is there a bicycle advocacy group in your area? It might help you to have strength in numbers as you approach these people.

Those do not look like bike lanes as I know them. So I probably would not ride in them. Except maybe that ones with a stripe on both sides of the lane. Doesn't look like they would be a hardship. But the others! You just don't want to ride on the concrete, you know? It's not smooth.

The city has been redoing a number of streets, and retrofitting BLs as they do it. Markings are consistent (note the dashed lines in the first photo, done at intersections for BLs) South of the first four photos, it looks much more like a BL, with the line seperating the auto lane and the bike lane well to the left of the concrete gutter. At times, as stated, the lane narrows to about 12" of usable pavement. At the ABC, the gutter widens, probably to a distance from the curb determined proper for a BL in some manual, hence the striping. In addition, the other side of the road is striped off the gutter, indicating a BL. It's a poor job. This one would have been better left alone. It's not the most bike friendly street, and this striping does not improve matters.

I'm a member of a local advocacy group, but mostly we lobby the GA. I'll be contacting them, thanks for the hint.

There should be AASHTO and/or State standards for bike lanes. 3 feet is considered substandard. Most bike lanes are in the 4 to 6 foot width range; and they should be at least 5 feet wide if adjacent to a parallel parking lane, for clearance in the door zone.

IMO, if they are installing substandard width bike lanes, you should strongly emphasize safety issues and that they will be subject to liability if anyone is hurt or killed using the facility, that will get their attention.

Here's some basics from a quick google on AASHTO Bike Lane Standards (of course you will also find criticism of the AASHTO standards from John Forester and LABreform with the same google):


Space Recomendations for Bicyclists
Minimum bicycle facility width: "An operating space of 1.2 m (4 feet) is assumed as the minimum width for any facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. Where motor vehicle traffic volumes, motor vehicle or bicyclist speed, and the mix of truck and bus traffic increase, a more comfortable operating space of 1.5 m (5 feet) or more is desirable." Page 5

Paved shoulder minimum width: "Paved shoulders should be at least 1.2 m (4 feet) wide to accommodate bicycle travel.... Additional shoulder width is also desirable if motor vehicle speeds exceed 80 km/h (50 mph)...." Page 16

Minimum width of bike lanes, no curb and gutter: "For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum width of a bike lane should be 1.2 m (4 feet).... A width of 1.5 m (5 feet) or greater is preferable and additional widths are desirable where substantial truck traffic is present, or where motor vehicle speeds exceed 80 km/h (50 mph)." Pages 22-3

Minimum width of bike lanes, with curb and gutter: "(For a) bike lane along the outer portion of an urban curbed street where parking is prohibited, the recommended width of a bike lane is 1.5 m (5 feet) from the face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe. This 1.5-m (5-foot) width should be sufficient in cases where a 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 foot) wide concrete gutter pan exists...." Page 23

Bike lane/shoulder maintenance and cleaning: "Regular maintenance of bicycle lanes (and shoulders) should be a top priority, since bicyclists are unable to use a lane with potholes, debris or broken glass." Page 8

Wide curb lanes: "Wide curb lanes for bicycle use are usually preferred where shoulders are not provided, such as in restrictive urban areas. On highway sections without designated bikeways, an outside or curb lane wider than 3.6 m (12 feet) can better accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles in the same lane and thus is beneficial to both .... In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane." Page 17
http://www.bikelib.org/roads/aashto.htm

Noticeably missing are BIKE LANE stencils and signs. What makes you think this is even a bike lane stripe (as opposed to a fog line stripe)?

Noticeably missing are BIKE LANE stencils and signs. What makes you think this is even a bike lane stripe (as opposed to a fog line stripe)?
Looks like the bike lane starts right before that red car. As for first four pictures, yeah that is not a bike lane.

Sorry, but it's consistent with other new lanes in the city, notably on Lombardy by Virginia Union University. You'll notice there are no BL stencils on even the obvious part of the BL-- the part going on the underpass. The street was resurfaced in the last two weeks and painted on Thursday, sans any stencils. There's also a southbound lane, including a poorly designed filter lane that makes bikes block right turning trucks (of which there are plenty). Fog lanes here generally run up to the concrete gutter, as in the first four pics; it's possible that's a fog lane, as HH states, but given the stripe is well outside of the concrete gutter south of the first four pics, and the presence of the broken line on this after each intersection, it looks like the intent is a bike lane. South and North of that block certainly looks more like a BL; the Northern portion should be obvious from the above photos. I'll know more when I talk to the city designer (if they call); hopefully they won't stencil any portion of this with BL markers, but we'll see. It may be they drop the lane for a block (I hope)

The underpass has long been the most challenging section of the commute. As stated before, it really requires taking the lane, for the vision of both the freeway exiting driver and the cyclist. Many motorists give the most cursory of glances and treat the stop as at best a yeild, so it's key as a rider you have the best possible vision (ie unblocked by the bridge's structural supports). The underside of the extra span is unpaved, which is likely why the lane doesn't go there; plus it would feed out on the wrong side of the 64 exit ramp.

IMO, if they are installing substandard width bike lanes, you should strongly emphasize safety issues and that they will be subject to liability if anyone is hurt or killed using the facility, that will get their attention.

IMO there is not much evidence that the alleged "liability issue of substandard width bike lanes" will get any attention from government/municipal decision makers at all. Reason? As far as I know the liability threat is just so much internet chatter and speculative opinion. Yes anybody can threaten to sue, having a case and collecting or getting any kind of satisfactory settlement from a government entity is another. Presumably most government authorities are not going to pay much attention to specious legal threats.

As another RVA Fan area rider I know what you mean about the bike lanes. One of my routes is from Monument to Bryan Park to take in the hill just before Diamond as a warm up. The new pavement on the Boulevard is nice except for the cobbled crosswalks. Since getting an up-close and personal view of the undercarriage of a a Ford Escort at Kensington and Davis I take what space I need irrespecive of bike lanes. The biggest problem I see in this city is the four way stops at almost very Fan intersection now. I firmly believe that 99.9% of drivers have no idea how a four way stop is supposed to work. Now that Paul Goldman is no longer with Mayor Doug maybe he can add cycling safety to his agenda. As an aside, we were heading out this morning to the Mayor's Walk and Roll at the end of the 14th St. bridge. Just heard on the news that a railway bridge collapsed at that location and 8 train cars derailed.

I think the people who designed this must flat out hate bikes. Does Richmond have a bicycle coordinator? Someone who can have input into traffic planning?

I wonder if this poor design was deliberate. Maybe they have some highway funds where x percent must be spent on alternative transportation means. Being on a tight budget maybe they got creative, spent a few hundred dollars on white paint, and used the savings on something else!

What is the legal minimum bike lane width in your state? It is 1.5 meters, essentially 5 feet, in California.

Whether it's a fog line or a bike lane stripe, treat it as a fog lane stripe and ride to the left of it. Where the lane puts you in danger from right turning trucks, take the lane about 100' before the intersection.

I agree with the others, contact your local cyclist advocacy group. If you don't have on, use this lane as the basis to start one. In the mean time, call and write the city traffic engineers. In my town, they'll often talk to you. That will let you see how they are thinking, and you might be able to resolve it with them. They're good folks to have on your side if you can. If you can't, start calling and writing your local government officials.

What is the legal minimum bike lane width in your state? It is 1.5 meters, essentially 5 feet, in California.
Source?

What's a bike lane?

I ride that road semi-regularly and never thought it was a bike lane, I always just figured it was a shoulder/gutter, and I ride in the right lane. I'm pretty sure Richmond does not have any real bike lanes, just some paths. The only one I can think of is on Robius but thats way outside the city limits.

Lung, this is all a new addition, the road was repaved in the last two weeks (no fun to ride, they ate up the old pavement and for a while it was Paris-Robaiuax or however you spell that ). Restriped on Thursday. However, I really do want to talk to the designer of this and figure out the intent. Without the marking, it's hard to figure, and they add signage later to these projects. The city has started adding them to road construction projects in the last six months or so; they're mostly unlinked. Check out Lombardy by VUU for an example (as I recall, it took a while to mark 'em there after the intitial painting). Chesterfield has some pretty good ones, ride out Iron Bridge road sometime. There's a number of them, they keep them clean and well marked, with good signage. I like riding in them. I don't like this one.
The section under the bridge is certainly intended as a BL. I'm not as certain with the area in front of the ABC HQ-- no one's going to ride in that. Neither is particularly good, in my opinion. The vision lines under that bridge are bad-- ride the BL and tell me it ain't so. I'd like to talk to the person co-ordinating the design of these things; it'd be good to give them some cyclist FB.

This is good, it calms me down a bit... I'd like to thank all of you for pointing out various issues and letting me rant. Get it out of my system, because when I talk to these folks I really want to be calm and rational. If the stretch in front of the ABC is not intended as BL, I'll let you guys know.

That kind of bike lane would definitely have me "sitting in the front of the bus."

It's official. I just got off the phone with traffic engineering for RVA, and the entire stretch photographed above is intended as a bike lane. Even the rut/fog lane. It was marked this morning with spray painted diamonds and the letter "B" today, indicating they will paint bike lane symbols in it, plus the city traffic engineers said it was a BL (they were starting to paint street markings--RR crossing, turn arrows, today). Their rationale for this design: "It's what we had to work with." I told them in no uncertain terms it was inadequate, and better they had done nothing. Apparently none of them ride bikes, I now have the name and number of the gentleman responsible for this "design" and will call him tomorrow. I was hoping I was over-reacting, that as other posters had said, this couldn't be a BL. It is. I would rather have been wrong.

I am off to cool down, by taking a bike ride, although not on this route. I have offered to take the traffic engineering folks on a ride down this lane, I stated my case best I could and got off the phone after they told me it was a BL. I'm preparing to write some letters, and will contact my city councillour tonight.

I am off to cool down, by taking a bike ride, although not on this route.
You don't have to ride in the BL.

(meaning you don't have to avoid the route, not meaning you shouldn't fight the inadequate BL and work to get it improved)

Al

Bad perhaps, but far from worst ever. No debris or mud covering entire width of lane. No drainage grate/biker trap. Not much door zone riding. They could have done a much better job of making a bad bike lane.

Bad perhaps, but far from worst ever. No debris or mud covering entire width of lane. No drainage grate/biker trap.
The part that concerns me most, but is hardest to tell from photo, is if there is a sufficient enough ledge caused by the asphault edge over the concrete gutter that can catch a bike tire and cause cyclist to loose control.

Al

Keith, you're welcome to come ride it with me and any traffic engineers/city councillours I can convince to do it. The shortcomings are noted throughly in the first post. I'm going to try and convince them to remove the northbound lane, where the worst of it is (all the above photos run North). The Southbound lane isn't a honey, but it's better.

I can't see how a BL this badly designed would encourage anyone to ride. Part of the lane is in broken gutter, it exposes cyclists to a right hook, there's a door zone, there's the limited visibility re: the off ramp.

You're right, though, it could be worse. Perhaps a couple of grates parallel to bike wheels, some debris and mud (keep in mind this street was just repaved, so there is time for all that) like you mention in your post. Perhaps the city could dig it up. Already trucks are parking in it. If you'd like mention your suggestions to make it worse, I'll mention it to the city traffic engineers, perhaps they didn't think about adding them in.

Don't forget to plant the fast growing shrubs close to the curb. For maximum effect I would suggest in what remains of a sight line for the offramp section. It is that kind of real extra effort that can put them over the top as worst ever. Remember to be really bad they actually have to make an effort to make things worse.

Keith, thanks for making me laugh. I need to remember to keep my humour about me during all this.

I will suggest the fast growing shrubs, in addition to the grate. :)

Keith, you're welcome to come ride it with me and any traffic engineers/city councillours I can convince to do it. The shortcomings are noted throughly in the first post. I'm going to try and convince them to remove the northbound lane, where the worst of it is (all the above photos run North). The Southbound lane isn't a honey, but it's better.

I can't see how a BL this badly designed would encourage anyone to ride. Part of the lane is in broken gutter, it exposes cyclists to a right hook, there's a door zone, there's the limited visibility re: the off ramp.

You're right, though, it could be worse. Perhaps a couple of grates parallel to bike wheels, some debris and mud (keep in mind this street was just repaved, so there is time for all that) like you mention in your post. Perhaps the city could dig it up. Already trucks are parking in it. If you'd like mention your suggestions to make it worse, I'll mention it to the city traffic engineers, perhaps they didn't think about adding them in.

On the serious side if you can get any traffic engineers or city councillours to ride you make the most of it. Most important is to remember the ones most apt to be willing to do it are very likely the ones least to blame. Of course adjust to who you get but here are some things to consider.

Any politician may be totally unaware of the problems from a cyclists point of view. Even the engineers may have limited experience. Kept friendly you may get an easy convert. Assume either intended to do good for cyclists. For the engineers remember they may have been given a mandate, either put in a bike lane getting from here to there or perhaps even put a lane on this street. If someone who may have been constrained find out their constraints. Finally perhaps you might talk during the ride. Ask why would a cyclist ride? It can help put the flaws into focus. Take the offramp issue (by far the most serious as I read things, you may know better based on details). Let's say you have not got them thinking about why a rider might ride they might say well you can stop and wait, it even sounds good. But lets say you have got them thinking why a rider might ride. Take either commuting or pleasure. For commuting having to wait is not acceptable, and it might be a long wait that time of day. For pleasure that kind of wait and even potential danger takes the fun away, the ride is no longer pleasure. For a kicker you might point out that innocent parents might tell their preteen kids they can ride where there are bike lanes. I think the same split of pleasure vrs commute works well for the gutter areas also. One could think well just slow down. Well of course if slowing down doubles the commute time it kills that and having to slow down and ride the gutter makes pleasure riding far from a pleasure. Of course a non optimal section would be OK. A place where you need to slow down a bit for a while is fine if the rest of the ride is good for either pleasure or commuting.


Back to really bad. The beach bike path in L.A. has a section where it goes from path to lane. The path joins the street at a right angle and has posts designed to keep the cars out, but as a secondary effect makes sure bikes enter the street at a right angle and many if not most cyclists end up past the bike lane and in traffic before they finish the turn. Being on a bike path few stop. And yes I saw the aftermath of an accident, a cyclist leaving on a back board. Guess it could have been worse.

Well, I just emailed my city councillour and Mayor Doug. I'm going to compose some letters to the local paper, maybe contact a woman I used to date in one of the TV new departments. Thanks, Keith, the suggestions are all good.

. . .You're right, though, it could be worse. Perhaps a couple of grates parallel to bike wheels, some debris and mud. . . .
Also, drunks could line it with broken glass every night, and bike-thief thugs could lie in bushes next to it. So you're right, it could be worse. ;)

Seriously, you need to decide if your goal is a better bike lane or the elimination of this lane. I'm not going to start a debate in this thread about which way to go, but that's a fair question for city policy people to ask you.

In my letters thus far, I have asked for removal. Given the rationale of the city works-- ""It's the best we could do with what we were given"-- I cannot see them improving it. That would require taking lane space away from the automobiles, esp. in front of the ABC. Can't see that happening, though I'll be sure to suggest it as an alternative.

Also, drunks could line it with broken glass every night, and bike-thief thugs could lie in bushes next to it. So you're right, it could be worse. ;)

Seriously, you need to decide if your goal is a better bike lane or the elimination of this lane. I'm not going to start a debate in this thread about which way to go, but that's a fair question for city policy people to ask you.

There is a bike path with just that problem near Santa Monica. The Balgona Creek Bike path goes behind the projects. It was rumored that they intentionally broke bottles on the path to stop, and then rob, cyclists. I can neither confirm or deny this rumor. I do know that several years ago when I was first riding and only had a mountian bike there was at least one time when there was no glass. It isn't that hard to carry a broom on a bike. (Oh and I was never even approached by anyone while sweeping, gang banger of cyclist).

From what my wife and I have been told by certain city traffic people, most of the bike lanes in RVA (and most definitely the one on Semmes Ave) weren't put in to benefit cyclists, so much as to act as a passive traffic control; that is, the lanes make the roads look smaller so drivers tend to slow down. Sad, huh?

From what my wife and I have been told by certain city traffic people, most of the bike lanes in RVA (and most definitely the one on Semmes Ave) weren't put in to benefit cyclists, so much as to act as a passive traffic control; that is, the lanes make the roads look smaller so drivers tend to slow down. Sad, huh?

Sounds like a 'Bike Lane' near me. For those in the Los Angeles area it is Oxnard from DeSoto to Winnetka About 1 mile) . DeSoto has a bike lane, but no contuation on either end. This section is about 70% hill, much of it nasty. Almost no one ever rides this road. The reason it was put in was because residents wanted less traffic (with reasonale cause). It was 2 lanes each way. Now it is one lane each way with a left turn center divider and bike paths that rarely see bikes.

So regarding the original poster, I caught the 5:30 NBC 12 broadcast tonight, and just by chance they were doing a segment on this exact post. The exact same area of Hermitage road. Dealing with the Diamond travelling North past 64 (and no I don't mean Boulevard). I've tried looking for a link on their website about the story, but no dice. I'll link to their homepage but have no idea if they plan on putting this piece up on their website. NBC12 (http://www.nbc12.com)
They got out some lady from public works, and a 'local expert' on bicycling. They seemed to be in agreement that it isn't a bike lane as it's "not the regulation 5 feet in width". However, they did notice that there is a diamond marked in roadworker spraypaint, and that it probably will become one. The public works engineer mentioned that the markings were meant as a buffer between pedestrians and motorists. Interestingly when she was speaking about it being this "buffer", a car split the lane to pass sitting traffic to to a right. So much for that idea I suppose. At the end of the report they were mentioning that the one on Semmes Avenue will probably become a bike lane, but for the moment isn't.

I'm not sure exactly what is going on with all this. I do know that at this point the area South of the Hermitage Robin Hood Road intersection will not be marked as a bike lane. What I know is this:

1) The preliminary markings (spray paint) indicated the lanes were intended as a BL.

2) I was told they were intended as a BL by a city traffic engineer last Monday.

3) Today, I was told by a second city traffic engineer that the preliminary markings were a mistake and the first traffic enginner was mistaken.

I'm not about to untangle all that.

So the area South of Robin Hood Road will not be marked as a bike lane. In addition, the engineer I talked to today indicated that the broken lines at the stripping after each intersection, consistent with BL markings were also in error and would be painted solid.

As to the spot under the 64/95 bridge, I was told today that was supposed to be a BL, but they've gotten enough complaints that they are having second thoughts about marking it as one. The traffic engineer today insisted there was ample clearance between the lanes and car doors (there is not). Didn't contest my statements about line of vision. The lane will remain as a sort of multi-use path, for peds and cyclists. I suggested a sign at the bridge stating "cyclists may take full lane", though I would rather see the whole thing just removed.

I got an explantion similar to that in post #32 as well, that the lanes were shortend as a traffic calming measure, and that the added shoulder was installed to give cyclists some added "escape room".

Hey there. I am not sure how useful this link will be for you, but it MAY give you some idea of what might be possible where you live. I live in Ontario, and this is a link to the section of our regions website (official government one) which deals specifically with the bicycle plan and what is going to happen here (and is, gladly, happening here). Perhaps it will give you some ideas for what your local advocacy group can gun for?

If you take the time to look at the maps the link provides, you will see that we have (I mean, those advocating, I am not, sadly, a part of this group due to other responsibilities and time constraints) managed to secure country onroad bike routes. These actually have bike lanes on them, some of them well over 1.5 m wide, but most about 1m max (which is not perfect, but considering the whole region has gravel shoulders big enough for mennonite buggies - a narrow road lane - this ammount is fairly generous. Ontario has, if I remember correctly, a 60m width road right of way - if I am out a bit, DONT shoot me! It has been a while since I have looked it up...)

Tis just a thought. Hope it at least inspires you. Good luck down there...

http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8f9c046037662cd985256af000711418/893efb641deeaa3d85256b7b004d321d!OpenDocument

What's a bike lane?Well, that depends. The 1998 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices had the following definition:
Designated Bicycle Lane - A portion of a roadway or shoulder which has been designated for use by bicyclists…
Then there's the current MUTCD definition:
Bicycle Lane ... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.(Toss a coin to choose between preferential or exclusive)

From the Nevada DOT:
Bike Lane ... for the exclusive use of bicycles. (Exclusive side of the coin landed up)

From the NC DOT:
bicycle lane ... for the preferential and exclusive use of bicyclists(Both sides landed up) :o

In today's Richmond Times Dispatch:

Shifting Gears on Commuting (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137835925299&path=%21news&s=1045855934842)