Area Bike Lane Updates

(image from K_Gradinger Flickr)

We’re awaiting BikeDenton’s report on the recent NCTCOG Bike and Pedestrian meeting, but what we’ve heard so far, sounds pretty exciting. Specifically, Richardson has rolled out bike lanes along Custer and Grove roads. The neighborhood associations fought to have these implemented, and traffic planners in the city moved forward with these streets as test-case scenarios. BFOC has also been contacted by community advocates hoping to model a similar organization to our own in Richardson, so expect to hear word soon.

Speaking of BikeDenton, a bicycle advocating mother attended a city briefing with three children in tote, promoting installation of bike lanes on Pennsylvania Drive. She’s petitioned fellow neighbors, and it appears there’s major momentum occurring within the community to get these installed.

Arlington was also profiled this week on about issues with pedicab services taxiing people from parking lots to the stadiums. Further in the article, the writer discusses the city’s recent initiatives to install bike lanes. This was news to us, as Arlington is one of the largest US cities without public transit, and has previously not shown a lot of support for bike and ped friendly programs like complete streets initiatives.

Of course, Fort Worth is still moving along with their planned 470 miles of bicycle lanes. We hope to have more updates here soon. Also, our neighbors to the South, officially receive their first bike sharrows tomorrow. Stay tuned to Austinontwowheels for more information on this development.

And lastly, but most importantly, Dallas is set to announce a major southern sector street designed with bicycle lanes within days. We were informed at a recent chamber meeting on this announcement, and are excited about its proximity to Downtown. Official word will probably come down from the Fort Worth Avenue Development Group (and no, it’s not on FWA). After this announcement, a second street, which we have a bit more details on, is set to be announced as well. Stay tuned!


  1. If anyone is not familiar with the implementation of “bike lanes” in Richardson, please carefully study this diagram. Can anyone honestly say that this is what you are hoping for when you advocate for bike lanes?

  2. dickdavid · ·

    I love the nice, wide bike lanes in Richardson! I just wish there were more.

  3. @Stuart

    Yes. According to Howard, who attended the presentation, the road had a single 21′ lane. It’s now been divided with 10′ for car (typical lanes are 11′, so the subtracted foot aids in calming speeds), and the 12′ extra is being set aside as parking/bike trail. The picture notes 8′ for parked cars, with the remainder given to bicycles.

    According to the traffic engineer who was charged with creating the lane noted that 99% of the neighborhood were in favor of this. He also stated that since it was previously a 21′ single lane, legally, a cyclist couldn’t “take the lane”, as they’d be required to stay on the right half, and that they were merely striping that area so existing road users would note it was a bicycle path.

    More here:

  4. When calculating the width of the previous lane, you have to subtract the on-street parking. I believe the MUTCD standard is 11′ for parking+door zone which only leaves you with a 10′ travel lane.

    Even if you forget about “taking the lane”, you are only required to ride as far right “as practicable”. The way the new lanes are stripped encourages you to ride closer to the parked cars than is safe. If instead you ride 11′ from the right curb, you are now right along the lane line with very little clearance from the passing traffic. To make it worse, the center median prevents considerate drivers from deflecting left in order to give bikes a reasonable clearance.

    The dangers of door-zone bike lanes are well documented.

  5. So your recommendation is to do away with the parked cars? That was the one part that Howard felt was debatable as well.

  6. I’m suggesting that there is not enough room, in this case, for both a bike lane and on-street parking. I think it would be pretty difficult to tell people they can’t park in front of their own homes.

  7. I understand the logic, but given that concern, shouldn’t we create a buffer on all residential streets separating parked cars in front of houses from vehicles that travel the road? There has to be hundreds of similar passes vehicle to vehicle occurring on a daily basis on your average residential road, no? Why aren’t we creating a barricade or buffer for these instances?

  8. The previous street configuration provided approximately 4 feet of buffer space between the parked cars and the moving traffic. The Richardson planners are now telling cyclists that they should ride in that buffer space.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: