Another Rear-Ender on GWP

[Tim Kelley]

@rcannon100 13578 wrote:

NPS??? Didnt there use to be contact information under “advocacy” or something in the forum??

Check the top sticky in the Road & Trail Condition section: http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?581-National-Park-Service-Contact-Information

[DaveK]

@dcv 13574 wrote:

I’m curious, why do you think LEED certification makes it harder to bike to work?

I don’t. I think certifying a building that’s 50 miles from anything as environmentally friendly if that building could have been built near transit options is disingenuous.

[pfunkallstar]

@DaveK 13581 wrote:

I don’t. I think certifying a building that’s 50 miles from anything as environmentally friendly if that building could have been built near transit options is disingenuous.

Right on. I know this is a factor that is taken into account in most of Western Europe (albeit the plethora of public transport options makes it less of an issue). In terms of biking not being a viable option, a good first step to “finding time” (a pretty common argument from the “I can’t bike because” folk) is to turn off the TV. According to the OECD the average American watches an entire workday’s worth of TV everyday (actually just under 8 hours), which is just mind blowing. http://www.economist.com/node/14252309

[Brendan von Buckingham]

Funny about LEED and biking facilities. I work with historic architecture groups and we complain that builders get more LEED points for a bike rack than they get for reusing an old building with millions of BTUs of embodied energy in it. From our tainted perspective, all we see are oceans of bike racks. The short explanation is that LEED is 80% brilliant marketing and only 20% science/engineering. But now we’re way off topic.

Thanks btw for pointing out there are three crossings, not just the one I use. Same solution: chicanes before every crossing. If people don’t want to drive 25, NPS won’t patrol/enforce the speed limit, and NCPC won’t allow traffic lights/signals in the park, make them drive 25 mph with a safer road layout.

[dasgeh]

@Brendan von Buckingham 13583 wrote:

Funny about LEED and biking facilities. I work with historic architecture groups and we complain that builders get more LEED points for a bike rack than they get for reusing an old building with millions of BTUs of embodied energy in it. From our tainted perspective, all we see are oceans of bike racks. The short explanation is that LEED is 80% brilliant marketing and only 20% science/engineering. But now we’re way off topic.

I think the point here is that the environmental impact a building has is more than the materials going into the building. If whether the building is “new” with 100% recycled materials or a reused building that’s renovated with recycled materials, if the location is such that it encourages driving, it’s not “green”. Bike racks don’t change a building’s location. On this point, I think we’re on the same side.

@Brendan von Buckingham 13583 wrote:

Thanks btw for pointing out there are three crossings, not just the one I use. Same solution: chicanes before every crossing. If people don’t want to drive 25, NPS won’t patrol/enforce the speed limit, and NCPC won’t allow traffic lights/signals in the park, make them drive 25 mph with a safer road layout.

I use the one you pointed out, and I’ve heard many times it’s the BEST of the three. I feel bad for people who cross at the others, because the one we cross at is pretty horrible. However, wouldn’t chicanes before the crossing be LESS safe, because drivers would not be able to see the people crossing until they’d come around the curve? I’m in the “signage now, tunnel later” camp. I’m a big fan of the idea a few months back to have the GW parkway run under the circle, like Connecticut does with Dupont.

[dasgeh]

@creadinger 13577 wrote:

For the vast majority of people though, it is simply not an option on a daily basis for a variety of reasons; therefore the need for fuel-efficient cars. It’s sad because if more people actually tried it they’d probably like it, or at least realize that it gets their sedentary fat asses some exercise. The fact remains though that humans are going to rely on cars for a long long time. The only thing that will change is the fuel.

There’s a lot here, but I think lots of people could bike if they just tried it. In fact, for many people, it would take the same amount of time or less than their car commute.

Most importantly, if we stopped subsidizing driving, people would make more conscious decisions about where they live (and their kids go to daycare/school). I’m more and more convinced that’s the real problem.

[Greenbelt]

@creadinger 13577 wrote:

Wow, that’s a bold statement but I think there are initiatives out there to get people to drive less – like the 2mile challenge etc. Unfortunately people like yourself, and many others in this forum don’t understand how extremely lucky you are to be able to bike to work most of the time. I did it for 5 years in Montgomery county and even though it wasn’t easy, it certainly was better than driving or metro most of the time. For the vast majority of people though, it is simply not an option on a daily basis for a variety of reasons; therefore the need for fuel-efficient cars. It’s sad because if more people actually tried it they’d probably like it, or at least realize that it gets their sedentary fat asses some exercise. The fact remains though that humans are going to rely on cars for a long long time. The only thing that will change is the fuel.

I think it’s more than fuel cost. In my opinion, the lack of multi-use “complete” streets is the biggest impediment to getting away from a purely car-oriented lifestyle. Many people who would love to try biking are intimidated by the hostile, car-dominated roads, especially in the suburbs.

It’s a vicious cycle and it’s hard to tell the starting point. But I think the primary culprit in suburban anti-bike and anti-pedestrian development is the minimum parking requirements.

These development rules essentially forbid the development of bike- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhood facilities, since all shops, restaurants, stores, public facilities are all but obliged to be surrounded by vast parking lots, which are usually empty. (It’s too expensive to build multi-level or underground garages in most suburbs, compared with cost of just paving surface land for parking.)

And since everything’s surrounded by a sea of surface parking, it’s inconvenient, hot, dirty and altogether unpleasant to walk places and even to walk from from shop to shop.

So everybody pretty much drives everyplace, even across the street. So everything gets more congested, so we build more lanes, which makes crossing the street on a bike or on foot even scarier. So since nobody walks or bikes, traffic engineers feel free to put in ramps and exit lanes, which make biking or walking all but impossible. We even have to drive to the gym to work out! The walkers and bike riders have been engineered out of the picture.

And since the roads are nearly free (marginal cost is only gas) and parking is usually free (via minimum parking requirements creating the expection of unlimited parking at every location) and the costs of car storage are put off on others, and people will always gravitate toward doing what costs the least, even the widest roads usually get congested anyways. And the engineers keep responding to complaints about congestion and travel times by building more lanes and higher-speed ramps, which create even-more-hostile streetscapes.

Driving becomes the only sane way to get around. Except that we can’t get around very well actually, and spending so much time confined in an enclosed vehicle not moving much and breathing each other’s fumes really isn’t all that sane when you think about it.

So people give up, stay home and watch more TV.

Where they see lots of car commercials.

What we have is a suburban lifestyle designed for driving, TV watching, isolation, obesity, back problems, and diabetes. We’ve designed out walking, biking, or otherwise moving about and interacting with others except from behind the confines of our 3000lb rolling death boxes.

A tax on surface parking, with revenues dedicated to rebuilding suburban roads as complete streets (with proper sidewalks, bike lanes and sidepaths) would be a start. Of course, I don’t recall hearing that idea in last night’s policy speeches…

Rant over. (But follow the parking requirements… That’s where it all starts.)

[Marcella]

Well I was car-free for years and I watched just as much TV as I do now.

I commute by car because it’s easier for me. I don’t want to commute by bike. I’m glad you guys like it, but it doesn’t interest me. And my ass is neither sedentary, fat nor in need of exercise.

I’m pretty new to this forum but I’m getting the impression it’s really just for bike commuters, and that recreational cyclists are not welcome.

[creadinger]

@Greenbelt 13594 wrote:

A tax on surface parking, with revenues dedicated to rebuilding suburban roads as complete streets (with proper sidewalks, bike lanes and sidepaths) would be a start. Of course, I don’t recall hearing that idea in last night’s policy speeches… Rant over. (But follow the parking requirements… That’s where it all starts.)

Agreed. Free parking is certainly where it starts. From my personal experience, biking 13 miles round trip to work was a hell of a lot cheaper than the $10/day to park in Bethesda, or the $10/day to ride metro. My current situation is that parking at work in Suitland is free, and the prospect of riding 24 miles daily along major traffic arteries, through sketchy neighborhoods, over glass strewn side-streets (I have never seen so much glass along the roads as I see in SE DC and PG county) taking twice as long as the car doesn’t add up to the ease of simply driving to work and saving my riding for weekends and errands near my apartment. That and I’ve been doing 6am yoga in Tenleytown most mornings lately too. I’m gonna try to buck up and ride 2x/week once the days get a little longer but unfortunately there are too many things in favor of driving at the moment.

[pfunkallstar]

@Marcella 13595 wrote:

Well I was car-free for years and I watched just as much TV as I do now.

I commute by car because it’s easier for me. I don’t want to commute by bike. I’m glad you guys like it, but it doesn’t interest me. And my ass is neither sedentary, fat nor in need of exercise.

I’m pretty new to this forum but I’m getting the impression it’s really just for bike commuters, and that recreational cyclists are not welcome.

Don’t self exclude! You ride a bike – thus you belong here. Frequent commentators tend to be the frequent riders (both commuter and recreational) – it is just the natural state of things “Do more of X = Have more to say about X.” Now would be a good time to weigh in with your thoughts on: the benefits of car commuting, coexisting with bicyclists on the road, recreational bicyclist infrastructure needs, etc… Taking your ball and going home is no way to play cricket.

[creadinger]

@Marcella 13595 wrote:

I’m pretty new to this forum but I’m getting the impression it’s really just for bike commuters, and that recreational cyclists are not welcome.

As a former bike commuter/current driver I feel the same way too at times. The commuters dominate the day-to-day discussion most of the time, but there are some really good threads in some of the other topics like “Group Rides” and other stuff. A lot of the general cycling issues are common to recreational riders and commuters alike too, so even though the stories are related to commuting, sometimes that part is incidental to the main issue at hand. For example the main topic of this thread.

[Greenbelt]

Sorry if my rant about suburban street design was annoying. As far as commuting vs. recreational vs. utility riding I think all are important to discuss. But the safety and street design issues bug me the most because I really notice it mostly when commuting or trying to get to a new place. Recreational riding is a breeze in my area — we have wonderful places for weekend rides. But commuting and utility riding in our area of the burbs is more challenging. I’m not anti-car, but I wish there had been more consideration for bikes (and walkers) along the way when suburbs were developed! -Jeff

[dbb]

Marcella,

While there are some hardcore commuters on the forum, most are also pretty ardent recreational riders as well. Good trails and safe roads benefit everybody and commuters and recreational riders can get behind improvements in that regard.

Dive in and join the discussion. I am pleased to say the riders I have met through the forum are first rate people who want to make cycling both fun and safe.

Dana

[JimF22003]

Just FWIW, I was on a “recreational” ride when I saw the accident I reported in the OP. I wasn’t commuting anywhere. I was just doing the usual winter loopy-loop. Maybe that’s why I get a little loopy sometimes

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@dasgeh 13584 wrote:

However, wouldn’t chicanes before the crossing be LESS safe, because drivers would not be able to see the people crossing until they’d come around the curve?

I don’t think so because drivers already don’t see cyclists waiting at the crosswalk. At least with a chicane cars would be forced to drive 25 and at least on one side (on the interior of the curve) visibility would be near perfect. As it is now, when a cyclist pulls right up to the crosswalk to indicate a desire to cross, the line-of-sight from cars to the cyclist is nearly parallel to the line of traffic. Since each car is a sight obstruction that means only the lead car (maybe 2nd back as well) can see the cyclist. That’s why there’s fender-benders: cars 3, 4, 5, etc. cannot see waiting cyclists until it’s too late.

It’s like trying to see through a picket fence. Stand back from it and set your line-of-sight perpendicular to the line of pickets and you can see right through. But stand nearly against the fence and set your line-of-sight practically parallel to the line of pickets and your vision is 100% blocked and you can’t see through the fence.

Chicanes won’t make cyclist visibility worse, but they will control speed and driver attention. Drivers are more likely to focus on the road than a cell phone if they have to navigate a curve. Chicanes are cheaper than a tunnel (NPS can’t even keep the pebble-dash sidewalk on Mem Br paved, they ain’t building a tunnel). NCPC will not allow visible highway devices in what they consider a scenic park.

[Author]

Posts