!Meeting Update! Attendees Needed! Washington Blvd Bike Lanes Meeting 3/1 5pm-8pm

I saw this in the WABA email that I received yesterday and will be there. I presume that I do not have to be there the entire time, but just need to show up to express support, correct? I think that the traffic calming angle should also be helpful because I expect that Washington Blvd will get more traffic when Rt 66 goes to HOT.

@Judd 151914 wrote:

Got it on the calendar but it will be challenging for me to get there on time.

I raised that issue last night at the BAC meeting. Turns out this is a drop-in event. You absolutely don’t need to come at 5 pm. They are doing a second presentation at 7 pm, so that is when I’ll be aiming to arrive by. Great if we can get a strong turnout, even if it’s only for that last hour from 7 to 8 pm. (Or just for a few minutes, even, to write something on the wall.) And the Westover Beer Garden is next door….

@accordioneur 151942 wrote:

This one is being justified with the dubious rationale that “Sidewalks will be more comfortable for walking due to buffering provided by the new bike lanes.” This is similar to, but more vague than the “Improving pedestrian safety” excuse for the bike lane along Wilson Boulevard @ Bluemont. Has anyone out there seen any data to indicate that sidewalks in the county are dangerous and anxiety-inducing, or is this one of those post-fact things?

That was undoubtedly true on Wilson; sidewalks there were much less comfortable to walk on before the road diet (moving cars were literally 2-3 feet away). Here on Washington Blvd. the sidewalks are set farther away from traffic, so I think this “reason” is more dubious.

@sjclaeys 151966 wrote:

If this project will remove the Washington Blvd parking in front of the Lutheran church, I’d imagine that could generate some strong push back.

It will not. They are looking at the other side of the street, partly for that reason.

@sjclaeys 151966 wrote:

I like the idea of putting a dedicated left turn lane on Ohio Street to Washington Blvd westbound, so that motorists no longer use the bicycle lane on Ohio Street as a right turn lane.

I take this to mean that there will be a left turn lane on Washington from left turns onto Ohio. Seems sort of ridiculous since I’ve never seen a backup there.

The only place I find stressful in this corridor is between Sycamore and Lee Highway. I don’t see any space for bike lanes there.

Although I support additional bike lines connecting our county streets, I can’t support this project. I actually live on Washington Blvd (east of Swanson) and travel along the stretch of road this project designates at least twice a day. The road is narrow, twisty in spots, with poor site lines. The only wide section of the road is at the church, which includes parking for the church out front. I don’t think narrowing the road is going to benefit the citizens that use the road nor the home owners alongside it. This is a major thoroughfare, not a quiet neighborhood street. As someone points out, when the HOT lanes on 66 go live a lot of extra traffic is going to get dumped on our streets. Traffic that can’t move smoothly is going to make it a nightmare for everyone, and squeezing an already narrow road with a bike lane doesn’t make sense. It don’t think it will make things safer for cyclists either. Even with the bike lane in front of my house, I usually get off Washington Blvd as quickly as I can and hit the back streets b/c I don’t feel safe. Heck, a mother and child were struck in a crosswalk, at a lighted intersection and nearly killed last month.

I think there is a time and a place for making our streets more bike friends and giving better access across the county, but I don’t think this is it. The road simply wasn’t design to accept the level of traffic it sees, vehicular or otherwise, and making it narrower (or stealing parking from the honest home owner that they very well may need) isn’t going to help.

My $.02 worth… let th flames from anti-car people errupt. I have my nomex undies on.

JG

@lordofthemark 152916 wrote:

I can definitely say that there are anxiety producing sidewalks in Alexandria, and I suspect there are some left
In Arlington. Both road diets (removing lanes) and lane diets (narrowing them) can reduce speeding, thus improving safety for all modes, including drivers.

As for I66, I thought the project will allow toll payING single occupant vehicles on. It’s not obvious there will be a net diversion away from I66.

Note also, traffic calming is often called for precisely on arterials.

People do not like to pay for roads if they do not have to (I have found this handy in other countries – I get the road all to myself and the high quality road combined with higher speed limits is fun too). Sure there is the Dulles toll road and those users are probably thinking that it is just an increase in tolls, but I am sure that many people will try to not use I66 if they have to pay – I see few people in the toll lanes on I-495, and my friends who have to commute that way do not use those lanes. Washington Blvd is already packed with single drivers after it goes HOV, and I do not envision most folks deciding to pay since their route works now and won’t cost them a ton of money (Hard to find exact figures, but $17/day for longest trip, which might include the outside the beltway portion, is thrown around. An extra $85/week is significant for commuting, if that were the case. Even an extra $20/week can add up for some people).

Note also that one HAS to have EasyPass to use the road, unlike the Dulles toll road where one can pay cash, or the tunnels in Norfolk or some bridges in NY, where they will bill you by mail and you can set up an account to make it cheaper. So anyone who only occasionally needs to use I66 will likely decide a different route. I rarely need it, but will be avoiding it if I have to pay tolls. (I am annoyed about the removal of the Dulles exception).

@JorgeGortex 152906 wrote:

Although I support additional bike lines connecting our county streets, I can’t support this project. I actually live on Washington Blvd (east of Swanson) and travel along the stretch of road this project designates at least twice a day. The road is narrow, twisty in spots, with poor site lines. The only wide section of the road is at the church, which includes parking for the church out front. I don’t think narrowing the road is going to benefit the citizens that use the road nor the home owners alongside it. This is a major thoroughfare, not a quiet neighborhood street. As someone points out, when the HOT lanes on 66 go live a lot of extra traffic is going to get dumped on our streets. Traffic that can’t move smoothly is going to make it a nightmare for everyone, and squeezing an already narrow road with a bike lane doesn’t make sense. It don’t think it will make things safer for cyclists either. Even with the bike lane in front of my house, I usually get off Washington Blvd as quickly as I can and hit the back streets b/c I don’t feel safe. Heck, a mother and child were struck in a crosswalk, at a lighted intersection and nearly killed last month.

I think there is a time and a place for making our streets more bike friends and giving better access across the county, but I don’t think this is it. The road simply wasn’t design to accept the level of traffic it sees, vehicular or otherwise, and making it narrower (or stealing parking from the honest home owner that they very well may need) isn’t going to help.

My $.02 worth… let th flames from anti-car people errupt. I have my nomex undies on.

JG

I don’t want to throw flames, but to challenge your assumptions here. For one, I don’t believe the lanes will be narrowed – that’s why parking spots will be eliminated. As far as “stealing parking from the honest home owner” – again, there’s no eminent domain being used or changing of curbs. It’s the County’s land and we’re discussing how the County should use it. Right now, the County provides completely free parking right in front of these houses, and the proposal is that it no longer will. Most (if not all) of these lots have driveways. There will still be parking across the street, and on the side streets. As the blocks are not particularly long on this stretch, this seems completely reasonable.

Also, the current set up forces some people, who would otherwise choose to bike, into cars. So the question is whether the County should maintain this space as (free) parking spots, or use the space to provide lanes that will decrease the number of cars on the road. As someone who lives nearby, I would think your interest would be better served by having fewer cars on the road.