Fw: October BAC-PAC Joint Meeting TONIGHT at 7 pm on Microsoft Teams
Cynthia Palmer
Thank you so much for meeting with the BAC and the PAC next month. Here are some initial observations and questions.
The role of the BAC and the PAC
We are hoping that the Oct. 8th meeting will bring us closer to an understanding of the role of our committees in Arlington County road safety and transportation discussions.
As you are aware, the Department of Environmental Services no longer proactively communicates with the BAC and the PAC, and we’ve been told not to expect interactions with DES staff on specific projects, intersections, and road-safety concerns. The 6-Step Public Engagement Process for Capital Projects no longer seems to apply to our advisory committees. For the most part, we are limited to submitting comments as individuals through the project websites in response to public solicitations. We wrote to Mark Schwartz last March, raising our concerns, building upon an earlier letter we sent him last November.
Following up on those letters, on March 12th we met with County Manager Schwartz to discuss how he envisions the BAC and the PAC participating in road safety deliberations under this revised DES policy. Mr. Schwartz suggested that the BAC and PAC should propose general policies and design standards rather than focus on specific intersection concerns and project input.
The BAC and PAC are very much open to engaging in Arlington’s design standards. We have many thoughts on what does and does not work, and several of our members have technical expertise and engineering backgrounds that could aid such an effort. This would involve a significant shift in our role. In prior years, our committees have served more as a reality check for Arlington planners. Amongst us we have experience with most every pot hole, curb cut, and traffic signal configuration in Arlington. We ride and walk and dodge motor vehicles across the county and beyond, so we are very familiar with the safety conditions.
Before we set about to do a deep dive into Arlington’s road safety standards and policies, we’d be grateful for your input. Is this what Arlington really wants from us? How can we can be most useful? We know that Arlington staff already work on standards, and we would prefer to work collaboratively with staff rather than step on toes. If we are tasked to work on policies, standards and guidelines, then we would want buy-in from you and from staff, and access to basic information on existing standards and policies. For example, we would request information on the current prioritization and selection processes for road treatments and on how exceptions are made. Simply having the "road safety toolbox" is not enough.
We would be grateful for your thoughts and input in these discussions. How do you envision the role of the BAC and PAC advisory committees in advancing road safety?
Design standards and the Master Transportation Plan (MTP)
The BAC and the PAC are active participants in the MTP process. Kristin Calkins, the leader of that effort, has stated explicitly that the refresh will not include design standards. Yet design standards – from signal policies to Protected Bike Lane (PBL) barriers -- are critical to transportation safety in Arlington and will significantly affect the MTP safety outcomes. One possibility might be to engage with Arlington staff in creating a design standards companion document to the MTP that deals with road, trail, and intersection treatments. This would be updated regularly – perhaps every couple of years – to keep up with the latest recommendations. The BAC, PAC, and other advisory committees would work with staff to create and update this document.
Several of us have started discussing such an effort in a separate BAC subgroup.
What do you think about the possibility of a regularly updated MTP design standards document, and the role that the BAC and PAC might play?
MTP process issues
The BAC and the PAC have been actively participating in the MTP-refresh Advisory Group.
Three issues have surfaced from those engagements:
1. Advisory Group members rarely receive documents in advance. They are expected to watch the PowerPoint presentations and react on the spot, representing their committees with little prior information on what will be presented. This process does not allow for advanced preparation and thoughtful analysis of the material, nor for consultation with the Advisory Group members' committees/commissions.
2. The Advisory Group is proceeding without using most of Arlington’s wealth of bicycle and pedestrian data. The county has a lot of information sources that could offer a valuable backdrop to the decisions undertaken. Bike-ped plans must be evidence-based.
3. There’s been a huge emphasis on how many voices have weighed into the MTP process -- the extent of the public outreach and engagement. But it is unclear how county staff are translating public input and MTP Advisory Group deliberations into actual draft language. There is little transparency. The draft language shifted multiple times in the weeks leading up to the County Board meeting, suggesting a disconnect between MTP drafting, Advisory Group input, and public engagement.
We’re interested in your thoughts and recommendations on these three concerns.
Other specific transportation safety questions:
Separation of bike lanes and traffic lanes
A range of spacing distances and types of separators are currently in use to separate bike and traffic lanes. See, for example, the different treatments along Eads, Crystal Drive, and Potomac Ave in South Arlington. The diversity of the ecosystem is also apparent along Wilson by the Courthouse. Many of the installations are performed by developers, creating long-term maintenance challenges for Arlington County. Ultimately, it may make sense to standardize a smaller number of approaches to streamline maintenance and promote the most effective designs. What evaluation process is anticipated to review the various approaches? How will the decisions from that evaluation be integrated into County plans or requirements provided to developers? Is there a design guide in use by Arlington?
Post-MOT (Maintenance of Traffic) road and lane conditions
Recently, some of the repairs to roads and bike lanes that have been damaged during construction have not been particularly well done. Examples include the work on Eads between 15th and 12th, as well as the Crystal House 3 project where the asphalt repairs appear to be beyond the expertise of the developer. As a result, after MOTs have been completed, bicyclists may have to continue using traffic lanes. What inspections are conducted before a contractor is permitted to complete a MOT?
Red light cameras
The Virginia Code authorizes Arlington County to have about 22 intersections equipped with red light cameras, and Arlington has significantly fewer installed. The county has added some, but not enough. From your perspective, what is necessary to equip more intersections with red light cameras?
Evaluating the effectiveness of infrastructure projects
What processes are currently in place to assess the effectiveness of recently completed transportation projects? How are the findings of those assessments used to refine future design standards?
Design and construction standards
What projects is DES working on to address design, construction, and operation of the transportation infrastructure in Arlington? For example, we are interested in any design and construction standards (or guides) that DES may be working on for the process of constructing bike lanes along roadways. Can you list those efforts, provide a summary of the scope of the effort, and describe the project milestones?
Projects in the queue
What construction (county, state, federal, private) efforts will be starting in the next two months that will impact bicycle lanes and walking corridors in Arlington?
What MOTs for private development are being reviewed or have been recently approved that will impact bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks in Arlington? How can we engage to effect corrections to MOTs?
Project documents are important for review and integration into the broader transportation plan. Can we work to ensure relevant documents are made available on project websites or other accessible locations?
Decision processes merit discussion. How can the public (or advocates) engage in the development of project concepts or down-scoping from multiple potential designs to the preferred alternative?
Is there some way we can standardize the transmission of such information on a regular basis? If so, what would be the process for the BAC and PAC to provide feedback on the plans?
Thanks very much, Hui.
We look forward to meeting with you on October 8th!
Warmest regards,