Arlington Needs a new Bike Plan. We can do better.

[DismalScientist]

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think protected bike lanes suck, especially those protected by parked cars and those with contraflow bike traffic. Sightlines are compromised, leading to either bicyclist speed reduction and/or right and left hook problems. In addition, these lanes often have few routes of escape if facing a hazard. In these situations, I often take the main travel lanes, but these are narrowed due to the placement of the PBLs. Furthermore, drivers often are offended when cyclists are in the main traffic lanes in the presence of bike-specific infrastructure. Frankly, I find these situations more stressful than the original infrastructure.

I was taught growing up not to ride my bike on the sidewalk for the obvious danger that is involve with moderate speeds. PBL, in my opinion, act as glorified sidewalks. I don’t know if it is possible to simultaneously build urban bike infrastructure for both experienced cyclists and neophytes.

[chris_s]

@DismalScientist 137351 wrote:

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think protected bike lanes suck, especially those protected by parked cars and those with contraflow bike traffic. Sightlines are compromised, leading to either bicyclist speed reduction and/or right and left hook problems. In addition, these lanes often have few routes of escape if facing a hazard. In these situations, I often take the main travel lanes, but these are narrowed due to the placement of the PBLs. Furthermore, drivers often are offended when cyclists are in the main traffic lanes in the presence of bike-specific infrastructure. Frankly, I find these situations more stressful than the original infrastructure.

I was taught growing up not to ride my bike on the sidewalk for the obvious danger that is involve with moderate speeds. PBL, in my opinion, act as glorified sidewalks. I don’t know if it is possible to simultaneously build urban bike infrastructure for both experienced cyclists and neophytes.

I respect your opinion, but the data runs counter to your experience. Studies of protected bike lanes indicate that they both improve safety and increase cycling rates.

[Tim Kelley]

@DismalScientist 137351 wrote:

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think protected bike lanes suck, especially those protected by parked cars and those with contraflow bike traffic. Sightlines are compromised, leading to either bicyclist speed reduction and/or right and left hook problems. In addition, these lanes often have few routes of escape if facing a hazard. In these situations, I often take the main travel lanes, but these are narrowed due to the placement of the PBLs. Furthermore, drivers often are offended when cyclists are in the main traffic lanes in the presence of bike-specific infrastructure. Frankly, I find these situations more stressful than the original infrastructure.

I was taught growing up not to ride my bike on the sidewalk for the obvious danger that is involve with moderate speeds. PBL, in my opinion, act as glorified sidewalks. I don’t know if it is possible to simultaneously build urban bike infrastructure for both experienced cyclists and neophytes.

Didn’t I send you this link on Facebook last week? Build it for Isabella!

[chris_s]

@DismalScientist 137351 wrote:

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think protected bike lanes suck, especially those protected by parked cars and those with contraflow bike traffic.

I respect your opinion, but the data runs counter to your experience. Studies of protected bike lanes indicate that they both improve safety and increase cycling rates.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 137351 wrote:

In these situations, I often take the main travel lanes, but these are narrowed due to the placement of the PBLs.

Not to go all lawyer on you, but in my earlier thread on lane widths you said this

My position depends on my speed relative to traffic. The faster I am, the more to the left. On a quiet street with or without a centerline, I take the middle of the lane. I will move right if a car is behind and it is safe to pass. On a two lane (in each direction) I take the middle of the right lane unless that lane is wide enough for safe passing when I am 3 feet from the curb.

If the lane was previously not wide enough for a car to pass in lane on the left (so at least 13 feet, I think) then you are riding in the center of the lane anyway, and expecting the car to go across the center line to pass anyway. So why does the above loss of lane width (say from 12 foot lanes, to 10 foot lanes) make a difference?

I understand the concern when a 13 foot or wider lane is lost (but those will often be lost due to traffic calming whether bike infra is added or not) and I understand the argument that drivers will be more aggressive towards cyclists taking the lane when bike infra is present (I am not sure I entirely agree with it, but I understand it) but I do not get the concern about lane diets, when the existing lane is already less than 13 feet.

Note bike infra can be created via road diets (reducing the number of lanes) rather than lane diets – which raises different issues.

[DismalScientist]

I think the data is in terms of perceived safety rather than accident rates. Frankly, I don’t want to promote infrastructure that creates a false sense of security for Isabella. Why should we design infrastructure for the least common denominator if it has the effect of excluding the more experienced riders?

A lane does not have to be at least 13 feet wide before passing is safe. Cars are explicitly allowed to cross double yellow lines to pass slow moving cyclists as long as they can pass safely.

[CaseyKane50]

@chris_s 137338 wrote:

Arlington’s bike plan is obsolete. It was written in 2007, when sharrows were the most exciting development in bike infrastructure. It predates protected bike lanes, Capital Bikeshare and Vision Zero. Implementation of many of the projects called for in the plan have faced significant citizen opposition, because the plan lacked the robust, inclusive public process that is needed to generate consensus and support.

To make Arlington a bike-friendly community for everyone, from age 8 to 80, we need an updated bike plan that lays out a complete network of low-stress bikeways. Without a clear vision of the network we are trying to create, opportunities to implement that network at a low cost through repaving and redevelopment will pass us by, resulting in higher costs later.

Tell the County Board to fund a public process to update Arlington’s bike plan in the FY17 budget.

A robust process, worthy of the term “The Arlington Way” will ensure that we end up with the clear, shared vision necessary to move forward to efficient implementation.

Alexandria budgeted $500,000 for their new plan. It took nearly 18 months with lots of meetings and citizen engagements to get the plan ready to work through the approval process. There are still at least two more public hearings and approvals to go.

Implementation will take many more years.

Hopefully, Arlington citizens will step up and push for funding a new plan.

[PotomacCyclist]

How does slower speed make bike travel less safe? Bikeshare seems to show pretty clearly that slower speeds on a bike tend to be very safe. Bikeshare users tend to travel much more slowly than other cyclists. The injury rate is lower than among cyclists in general and the fatality rate… well, after something like 25 million bikeshare trips nationwide (probably higher at this point), there hasn’t been a single bikeshare fatality in the U.S. That makes (slow-speed) bikeshare the safest common transportation mode out there. Plenty of drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists and some cyclists die on U.S. roads and trails. No bikeshare users so far. (There have been a couple bikeshare fatalities in Canada and Mexico.)

The heavy, stable bikeshare bikes also play a role in the safety of bikeshare. So does the upright riding position (because it’s easier to see hazards and an upright rider is more visible to other road users). But I think the slower speeds of bikeshare play a major role in the excellent safety history.

[Fairlington124]

Let’s do away with sidewalks as well. We can all become vehicular pedestrians after all…

[dasgeh]

Chris’s link is Arlington-only. If you’re not an Arlington resident and if you don’t mind spending a couple extra seconds, you could send an email directly to the County Board. It’s easy.
To: county.board@arlingtonva.us

Subject: Fund a robust public process to update Arlington’s bike plan

You might say something like:
I am not an Arlington resident, but I visit Arlington. I would visit Arlington more, and spend more money in Arlington, if it were more bike-friendly.

The Bike Element of Arlington’s Master Transportation Plan is obsolete. To make Arlington a bike-friendly community for everyone, from age 8 to 80, we need an updated bike plan that lays out a complete network of low-stress bikeways. Without a clear vision of the network we are trying to create, opportunities to implement that network at a low cost through repaving and redevelopment will pass us by, resulting in higher costs later.

Please fund a robust public process to update Arlington’s bike plan in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. A robust process, including outreach to under-served populations and backed by consultants with expert technical expertise would be worthy of the term “The Arlington Way” and ensure that we end up with the clear, shared vision necessary to move forward to efficient implementation.

[dasgeh]

Chris’s link is Arlington-only. If you’re not an Arlington resident and if you don’t mind spending a couple extra seconds, you could send an email directly to the County Board. It’s easy.
To: county.board@arlingtonva.us

Subject: Fund a robust public process to update Arlington’s bike plan

You might say something like:
I am not an Arlington resident, but I visit Arlington. I would visit Arlington more, and spend more money in Arlington, if it were more bike-friendly.

The Bike Element of Arlington’s Master Transportation Plan is obsolete. To make Arlington a bike-friendly community for everyone, from age 8 to 80, we need an updated bike plan that lays out a complete network of low-stress bikeways. Without a clear vision of the network we are trying to create, opportunities to implement that network at a low cost through repaving and redevelopment will pass us by, resulting in higher costs later.

Please fund a robust public process to update Arlington’s bike plan in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. A robust process, including outreach to under-served populations and backed by consultants with expert technical expertise would be worthy of the term “The Arlington Way” and ensure that we end up with the clear, shared vision necessary to move forward to efficient implementation.

[bobco85]

@DismalScientist 137368 wrote:

I think the data is in terms of perceived safety rather than accident rates. Frankly, I don’t want to promote infrastructure that creates a false sense of security for Isabella. Why should we design infrastructure for the least common denominator if it has the effect of excluding the more experienced riders?

I disagree that the incorporation of protected bike lanes into bicycle infrastructure excludes experienced riders. It just does not focus on experienced riders. I myself find them very enjoyable to ride in, but I understand that they are not raceways and must be taken a little slower (i.e., more casual).

My view as a vehicular cyclist is that we need bicycle infrastructure for those who are less experienced with riding in traffic because it helps get them started. They will likely still have to ride with traffic on their route, and it’s important that they do develop the skills for riding in traffic, but protected bike lanes will help those cyclists build more confidence with riding in general. Having a good piece of low stress bicycle infrastructure like a trail or a protected bike lane also helps to bridge many gaps when planning routes, and it can be the difference when the average person considers biking somewhere instead of driving.

I want everyone to eventually be able to ride on any street with confidence and safety, and I think protected bike lanes are an essential stepping stone to help to get people to that point. An update to the Arlington bike plan would help create these opportunities for more cyclists.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 137368 wrote:

A lane does not have to be at least 13 feet wide before passing is safe. Cars are explicitly allowed to cross double yellow lines to pass slow moving cyclists as long as they can pass safely.

yes, and they can do that from a 10 feet wide lane, just as from a 12 feet wide lane. So what do we lose by the lane diet? I am still not seeing that (other than the arguable position that drivers will be less tolerant of lane takers when there is seg infra on the road – but aren’t good VCers absolutely immune to honks, close following, etc? )

Note two other benefits of seg infra besides the (debated) safety benefit, and the encouragement to less experienced riders A. Where traffic in the general lanes is very heavy, it can make it possible to more safely filter. B. It increases cyclist distance from exhaust pipes – while we focus on dangers from accidents, exposure to emissions is one of the health concerns with road cycling.

Note – I do agree that car protected bike lanes should not be the default accommodation in all places. In general PBLs should be prioritized on the fastest, least comfortable roads. Where possible non door zone bike lanes protected by curbs (avoiding the visibility blockage by parked cars issue) or flexposts (avoiding the visibility issue, and making “escape” somewhat easier) or buffered bike lanes (avoiding the visibility issue and making escape easy) should be considered. Parking protected PBLs are for places where parking simply cannot be removed, and the conditions on the road make taking the lane an option only for a minority of cyclists. Perhaps especially on uphills, where even many experienced riders will be riding fairly slowly.

Also, we should look at changing signaling to make seg infra safer, since much of the danger from it is due to intersections that are signed and signaled as if seg bike infra was not there.

[S. Arlington Observer]

Without some infrastructure many people will not ride at all. Including me.

I bike to work because I have infrastructure that makes me feel comfortable enough to do so. The bike lanes are of varying quality on S. Eads Street (from fully protected to just being a narrow margin outside the auto lanes) but they do give a space to ride apart from the delivery trucks, buses and impatient commuters. Without them I would not use that street – ever. While that might make gung- ho elitists happy, it would mean fewer cyclists overall.

[DismalScientist]

The accident at K and 15th today illustrates my point. The only PBLs in the District I will ride in is L Street. The only parking-protected PBLs in Arlington are Eads and Hayes Street. I don’t think Hayes has enough traffic to justify such treatment and the turn into VA Highlands Park is nerveracking from both a driver’s and cyclists perspective.
I think Eads Street had bike lanes before. Southbound Eads at 23rd is a disaster waiting to happen. Others have commented on the likely potential for right hooks at northbound at 20th.

I have no problem with buffered lanes. I think curbs are a mistake because they lessen escape routes.

[Author]

Posts