Alexandria Updates

[Fairlington124]

The City continues its commendable but often slow upgrades to facilities. With Arlington apparently satisfied with resting on its laurels of past projects, Alexandria has, in my opinion, come close to closing the gap to the point of insignificance.

Protected Bike Lanes:
The resurfacing has occurred for North Van Dorn between Braddock and King (near Ft. Ward): https://www.alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=88173. I think we should expect painting and installation in the coming weeks.

New Projects:

Just today, the Localmotion staff (Hillary, I’m guessing) uploaded some new projects to the bike page (some so new that they don’t have corresponding links, yet):

-The previously-discussed community bikeway for Royal Street (personally I find this a safe street to ride already, but I’m also an able-bodied young adult male)- https://www.alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=92269

-Kenwood Avenue bike lanes (Fairlington). No project page yet, but given the work which is going to occur on King when it gets resurfaced (https://www.alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=86423), I’m guessing non-protected bike lanes along Kenwood from King to either Crestwood or Valley.

-Cameron and Prince bike lanes (Old Town). No project page yet, but these have also been discussed and would likely be non-protected lanes along the extent of those two streets (each of which are one-way). Lower volume streets than nearby King St.

[Fairlington124]

Also, the Transportation Commission had a meeting recently, and while I think it’s more of a wishlist than a near-term course of action, possible future projects include a Backlick Run Trail from Cameron Station to west of Van Dorn (Slide 37), and a whole bunch on slides 42 and 43

[lordofthemark]

Regarding Van Dorn, this is paving season in this end of Alexandria, so that makes sense. I think we may only see striping, not “installation” – I seem to recall someone saying they were now only going to do this as buffered lanes, and leave any addition of flex posts till later.

Re Royal Street – Ideally that would take out stop signs, and replace with roundabouts or other traffic calming, thus not only making it safer for cyclists, but making it faster (for non-Idahoing riders) and overall a better alternative to Union. I would expect it to be a political hot potato though – some OTCA folks are dead set against it.

Kenwood – I guess you are right and that will be door zone bike lanes – I am not much of a bold rider, and even I feel comfie taking the lane there, so it does little for me, but if it encourages more to ride there, that could be good. If we see the City being serious about enforcement on dooring, I would be more enthusiastic for door zone bike lanes.

Cameron/Prince – yes, I think the plan is the same (there was a debate some time back about PBLs, and PBLs lost) I find Cameron (even with multiple lanes) less comfortable for taking the lane than a street like Kenwood (some drivers intent on speeding up to a right turn have given me scares) so I would be pleased with the bike lanes there, though I also would expect more parking turnover there than a place like Kenwood.

From what I recall, there was no funding for the Backlick Run Trail, and the higher priority trail was the cameron run trail closer to Old Town. But this seems like an attempt to move Backlick ahead by getting state funding – makes sense since this also benefits Fairfax County.

[Zack]

@Fairlington124 141650 wrote:

-Cameron and Prince bike lanes (Old Town). No project page yet, but these have also been discussed and would likely be non-protected lanes along the extent of those two streets (each of which are one-way). Lower volume streets than nearby King St.

Here is an image of what the city plans for these two streets. It is not bad and does improve the existing conditions. But those improvements are marginal at best. Parallel bike lanes work well when they are close and easy to find. But these streets are more difficult to get to at the west end and too far away to really function as a pair of bike lanes.

I understand city staff’s reluctance to remove a traffic lane but in this case, there isn’t really enough traffic to support two traffic lanes in the one-way sections of Cameron and Prince. King St carries almost 10k cars per day or about 5k per lane. Cameron carries about 4.3k and Prince 4.4-6.2k in two lanes. If one lane was removed, there would be space for a cycletrack, larger parking lanes, and a single traffic lane.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11956[/ATTACH]

[KLizotte]

I take Cameron all the time to get from the MVT to Commonwealth Ave. I almost never take it during rush hour so can’t comment on how busy it is then. I have always found it a very easy street to bike (I take the lane), esp since cars can easily go around me and the stop signs/lights keep everyone’s speeds low. On this street I think I’d prefer taking the lane to avoid dooring even if there were bike lanes.

I’d rather they focused on making Washington Street safer for cyclists.

[consularrider]

@KLizotte 141671 wrote:

I take Cameron all the time to get from the MVT to Commonwealth Ave. I almost never take it during rush hour so can’t comment on how busy it is then. I have always found it a very easy street to bike (I take the lane), esp since cars can easily go around me and the stop signs/lights keep everyone’s speeds low. On this street I think I’d prefer taking the lane to avoid dooring even if there were bike lanes.

I’d rather they focused on making Washington Street safer for cyclists.

Yep, I prefer leaving it status quo. I think the proposed design is more dangerous for cyclists putting them in a door zone bike lane next to two narrow travel lanes. No empirical evidence, just my gut feeling from decades and thousands of miles of riding on the roads.

[lordofthemark]

I very much understand the issues people have with door zone bike lanes, and I am not going to say I am sure this is the right treatment (and I have not biked as many thousands of miles as many of y’all), but do want to note some points

A. Narrowing the lanes can reduce motor vehicle speeds, which is a benefit not only to those who like to ride in bike lanes, but to cyclists who continue (as they legally can) to take the lane, as well as to pedestrians and non speeding motorists. I do not have data handy on speeds on these streets.

B. Newbie cyclists will often ride in the door zone anyway. A striped lane in addition to possibly giving them more space from cars, may signal more overtly to people getting in and out of parked cars to expect bikes.

C. My own experience on these streets includes at least one time a driver would not change lanes to pass – she was approaching a right turn.

D. It is conceivable at peak the streets could be so congested that bike lanes could allow a speed advantage to cyclists via filtering – I am almost never in Old Town at rush hour, so do not know if that is the case here – but I know there are places in DC where I either use a bike lane to filter, or wish I could.

E. Alexandria wants “low stress” (I know) E-W routes parallel to, and close to, King. That is why these were chosen.

F. Personally I would be more comfortable with PBL’s, but I also understand some cyclists dislike those even more than door zone bike lanes.

Edit – found an item from when T&ES proposed these, and OTCA was fighting them :

City transit experts see the project as a way to calm traffic — based on neighbors’ complaints of speeding motorists — as well as encourage cyclists to opt for the road instead of using the sidewalk.

Evidently there have been complaints about speeding (and maybe T&ES studied it?) so traffic calming via a lane diet was part of the goal. Also, while many of us may be quite comfortable taking the lane here, there appear to be folks who ride on the sidewalk instead, despite the presence of the sharrows painted in the roadway.

Another rider in the course of a discussion of a different facility wrote

I get honked at, tailgated and passed with inches to spare on a regular basis on Prince and Cameron–one way streets with two lanes (very easy for drivers to pass) and sharrows all over the rightmost lane

[KLizotte]

Hmmm….the only time I’ve seen cyclists on Cameron using the sidewalk were folks going contraflow (something I did once as well).

“I get honked at, tailgated and passed with inches to spare on a regular basis on Prince and Cameron–one way streets with two lanes (very easy for drivers to pass) and sharrows all over the rightmost lane”

I am really surprised by that comment; but again, I don’t know what conditions are like during rush hour. Perhaps the rider goes really slow; say, on a Cabi? I’ve just never seen much traffic on that street. I’d be much happier if they installed a contraflow lane and left the other lane alone.

[Fairlington124]

As usual, any discussion about bike lanes here seems to devolve to remarks how they’re apparently frivolous since some people are comfortable taking the lane. Are you guys so myopic that you can’t understand why many people wouldn’t want to take the lane, or have their kids take the lane if they’re riding with them?

[KLizotte]

@Fairlington124 141684 wrote:

As usual, any discussion about bike lanes here seems to devolve to remarks how they’re apparently frivolous since some people are comfortable taking the lane. Are you guys so myopic that you can’t understand why many people wouldn’t want to take the lane, or have their kids take the lane if they’re riding with them?

No, I understand how people would feel more comfortable using bike lanes; I’m just thinking of Cameron St in particular and the way cyclists and drivers use it. The street will be very narrow if they install bike lane(s) and keep both lanes as well as the parking (which is the most likely outcome). Cyclists will then be relegated to the door zone and the narrow lanes will encourage drivers to pass cyclists without three feet of space. I’m all in favor of bike lanes where there is enough space. Taking the lane just feels like it is safer for all concerned than bike lanes in this particular case. I use the bike lanes all the time on Commonwealth and appreciate them. I am not anti-bike lane but recognize that they need to be well designed (I live on a street where they are not). If bike lanes encourage drivers to pass without three feet of space then I am generally against them.

I also fear that installing a bike lane(s) on this particular street will mean drivers will get really mad and annoyed when cyclists do take the lane whereas now there is plenty of room for safe passing. If the city is willing to remove a whole car lane, then I say go for it but given political realities I am not holding my breath.

[lordofthemark]

@KLizotte 141688 wrote:

No, I understand how people would feel more comfortable using bike lanes; I’m just thinking of Cameron St in particular and the way cyclists and drivers use it. The street will be very narrow if they install bike lane(s) and keep both lanes as well as the parking (which is the most likely outcome). Cyclists will then be relegated to the door zone

As you note below, taking the lane will still be legal.

and the narrow lanes will encourage drivers to pass cyclists without three feet of space.

We have had some discussion here of whether drivers are inclined to move over to allow 3 feet of space to a rider in a bike lane. My impression on Eye Street (where the drivers actually have to cross a yellow line to allow such room) is that many will, though a few will not.

I also fear that installing a bike lane(s) on this particular street will mean drivers will get really mad and annoyed when cyclists do take the lane whereas now there is plenty of room for safe passing.

If one is taking the lane, then drivers need to move out of the lane to pass safely anyway. If they are willing to do that from a 12 foot lane, they can do that from a 10 foot lane. I am not sure where you ride in a 12 foot lane, that is outside the doorzone and where a standard width motor vehicle can pass you in the lane, while leaving 3 feet of room.

To me the main disadvantage of striping a door zone bike lane is that it will encourage newbie cyclists to ride in the doorzone, rather than taking the lane. Against that we need to weigh 1. Many will ride in the doorzone anyway, which is likely even less safe without the striping 2. The lane diet calms traffic, which is a benefit to door zone riders, to lane takers, to pedestrians crossing the street, and to many drivers 3. Some riders will ride the sidewalk in the absence of the striped bike lane – which present safety issues of its own to riders, definite safety issues to pedestrians, and in a place like Old Town, is a huge political issue.

Now there are several empirical factors we have touched on that effect the desirability of the door zone bike lane, aside from the street geometry 1. Driver behavior, in terms of maximum speed and interaction with cyclists. Your experience is little speeding or bad interactions. T&ES is quoted as indicating speeding complaints, I have had mixed experience on driver behavior, and I have quoted someone who has bad experiences (and yes, as you indicate, slower and faster riders experience roads differently) 2. The level of parking turnover (my own experience was that it was low, though I might have expected it to be higher near King Street – but many people in Old Town have more cars than off street spots, and take spots one might expect visitors to use – and I forget how the parking is signed) 3. The behavior of cyclists – with regard to A. sidewalk riding B. riding in the doorzone anyway – Like you I have not seen cyclists taking the sidewalk there, nor riding in the doorzone anyway (but I did not see many other cyclists there at all when I rode, that I can recall) – I do note that T&ES mentions sidewalk riding (but could they have been referencing a local pedestrian complaint that failed to note the direction?) and I have certainly seen sidewalk riding in places where I think taking the lane is comfortable, and I have often seen riders in the road riding too far to the right.

[lordofthemark]

By the way, if we are really concerned about bike infra that encourages door zone riding, we should be waging war on all the existing sharrows that are painted in the door zone. They do the same bad thing, with none of the offsetting advantages of door zone bike lanes. I can’t say off the top of my head where I have recently seen those, but will make it a point to be on the look out and to note them here.

[KLizotte]

“If one is taking the lane, then drivers need to move out of the lane to pass safely anyway. If they are willing to do that from a 12 foot lane, they can do that from a 10 foot lane. I am not sure where you ride in a 12 foot lane, that is outside the doorzone and where a standard width motor vehicle can pass you in the lane, while leaving 3 feet of room.”

It is more of a psychological thing. Personal experience has shown me that if drivers see me taking the lane on a two lane one way street that doesn’t have BLs, they tend to treat me like a car and pass with lots of space. If I take the lane on the same road that has BLs, they expect me to move over into the BL to let them pass. When I don’t do that, they get impatient/mad and pass unsafely. I see it all the time on South Joyce Street, northbound, in front of Pentagon Row where I live. The bike lane is too narrow so cyclists are forced to ride outside of it or on the white line and cars refuse to move over into the other lane to pass so they pass within touching distance. I don’t have these problems on the southbound side because that side of the street is wider for both drivers and cyclists. The difference between the north and south bound sides is like night and day when it comes to biking there.

Any bike lane that does not allow the cyclist to ride outside of the door zone without hugging the white line is a disaster in my book.

[huskerdont]

To me, the fact that new riders often ride in the door zone even when there is no bike lane is a red herring. People will do things wrong sometimes–especially people new to an activity. However, a bike lane in a door zone states that the State thinks this is where you are supposed to ride, and thereby encourages and teaches new riders to ride unsafely.

[lordofthemark]

Ah, I was confused because you said now there is room for safe passing – there is still room for safe passing, but in your experience (on Joyce) drivers will not avail themselves of the room if they see a BL.

I wonder how many riders there are on Joyce. On Eye Street there are lots of riders, most who use the BL tend to ride on the left (IE on the white line or close to it) to avoid dooring, and there are also quite a few who routinely take the lane – and there are many instances when riders in the BL have to move into the general travel lane, whether to avoid a car standing in the BL, a car pulling into or exiting a parking space, to pass slower rider, to pass a pedestrian, to pass a salmoning rider, etc (it is a daily adventure) and it seems to me most regular drivers of the route get used to the fact that A. riders ride the white line in the BL and B. riders are often in the general travel lane.

I am also not sure how that would play out on Prince and Cameron.

[Author]

Posts