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

[bobco85]

@DismalScientist 137419 wrote:

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.

I don’t think the crash at K and 15th today occurred due to the design of having a protected two-way cycletrack. It occurred as a result of 1) jerks blocking the bike lanes which forced cyclists to go around them and 2) cyclists not paying attention to their surroundings by worrying only about the cars instead of oncoming traffic. If it illustrates your point, then by the same logic any parallel trail/path including sidewalks would also be unsafe because of the same sightline issues. Today’s crash could just have easily occurred at the Intersection of Doom or any other busy crosswalk where drivers do not yield to other road-users.

IME, the Hayes St PBL has been amazing, and I have found it infinitely better than riding in the door zone bike lanes that were previously there. My only issues with drivers have been on the right turn I have to make from 15th St/Joyce St to get onto it (they like to forget the bike lane exists, sometimes forcing me onto the sidewalk to turn). With the Eads St protected bike lane, all issues I have had were from drivers turning right onto Eads St in front of me, occurrences which typically happen regardless if I am in a PBL, bike lane, or regular lane of traffic. Now, if only they could invent a protected-from-driver-stupidity bike lane (maybe with force fields?), a PFDSBL if you will

[lordofthemark]

I am kind of wary of two way PBL’s.

I have only been on the Hayes Street PBL a couple of times. It was okay, and I did not go fast. Yeah there is not that much traffic – probably one reason a PBL was added, to narrow the road for traffic calming purposes.

I have use Eads quite a few times. I am very vigilant at the busier intersections. In the absence of the lane (when there was snow in the PBL) I did not take the lane on Eads, but detoured to quieter parallel streets. I did not find Eads terribly comfortable before the PBL.

[mstone]

Maybe it’s time for Arlington to try some Dutch treatments, no curbs but different pavement heights for pedestrians, bikes, and cars (sloped edges).

[Judd]

I think we need to get back to the real topic here, which is “Why is Dismal so opposed to Isabella eating ice cream?”

[Guus]

@S. Arlington Observer 137413 wrote:

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.

This, exactly this (except I ride on Quincy and not S. Eads). Infrastructure is key for a safe and relaxed commute. The bikelanes on Quincy aren’t great but they’re way better than nothing.

[DismalScientist]

@bobco85 137429 wrote:

I don’t think the crash at K and 15th today occurred due to the design of having a protected two-way cycletrack. It occurred as a result of 1) jerks blocking the bike lanes which forced cyclists to go around them and 2) cyclists not paying attention to their surroundings by worrying only about the cars instead of oncoming traffic. If it illustrates your point, then by the same logic any parallel trail/path including sidewalks would also be unsafe because of the same sightline issues. Today’s crash could just have easily occurred at the Intersection of Doom or any other busy crosswalk where drivers do not yield to other road-users.

This is almost precisely my point. Parked car protected bike lanes, exacerbated by contraflow lanes, require better traffic anticipation skills than simply riding on the road. The problem is that at intersections right turning traffic is to the left of through cyclists. It’s even worse if there is two-way cyclist traffic. That cyclists could not deal with a highly visible, stationary object in the bike lane without crashing into each other indicates to me that the cyclists do not have the requisite skills to ride in such a PBL. Traffic obstructions occur on the road with some frequency and a driver that runs into one is rightfully blamed. I don’t see why the same standard should not apply to a PBL. (Of course the SUV driver likely should be cited for obstruction of traffic, but the cause of the accident was the cyclists not riding in accordance with conditions.)

Your point that these are the same issue with sidewalk bike paths and that they also are dangerous is precisely correct.

The basic problem is that many in the biking community advertise PBLs as less stressful. In fact, I think they require better cycling (and driving) skills than riding in standard bike lanes or roads unmarked with bike markings. (This is also true of many MUPs as well–think Custis and MVT.) I don’t think someone like Isabella, who likely does not understand how traffic normally flows (including unsignaled turns, distracted drivers, etc), should be in a PBL. Traffic anticipation skills often take years to acquire. It’s not that I don’t want Isabella to ride, I just don’t want her killed off. She would probably be better suited in finding alternative routing through less-trafficked neighborhood streets.

[Tim Kelley]

@DismalScientist 137468 wrote:

This is almost precisely my point. Parked car protected bike lanes, exacerbated by contraflow lanes, require better traffic anticipation skills than simply riding on the road. The problem is that at intersections right turning traffic is to the left of through cyclists. It’s even worse if there is two-way cyclist traffic. That cyclists could not deal with a highly visible, stationary object in the bike lane without crashing into each other indicates to me that the cyclists do not have the requisite skills to ride in such a PBL. Traffic obstructions occur on the road with some frequency and a driver that runs into one is rightfully blamed. I don’t see why the same standard should not apply to a PBL. (Of course the SUV driver likely should be cited for obstruction of traffic, but the cause of the accident was the cyclists not riding in accordance with conditions.)

Your point that these are the same issue with sidewalk bike paths and that they also are dangerous is precisely correct.

The basic problem is that many in the biking community advertise PBLs as less stressful. In fact, I think they require better cycling (and driving) skills than riding in standard bike lanes or roads unmarked with bike markings. (This is also true of many MUPs as well–think Custis and MVT.) I don’t think someone like Isabella, who likely does not understand how traffic normally flows (including unsignaled turns, distracted drivers, etc), should be in a PBL. Traffic anticipation skills often take years to acquire. It’s not that I don’t want Isabella to ride, I just don’t want her killed off. She would probably be better suited in finding alternative routing through less-trafficked neighborhood streets.

Sounds like you need protected intersections to go with your protected lanes:

[video=vimeo;86721046]https://vimeo.com/86721046[/video]

[lordofthemark]

If Isabella actually has a less trafficed neighborhood street that takes her to the ice cream shop, that is great. Here in Alexandria (I know this thread is about Arlington, but I am interested in the issues as they effect my advocacy, and I am not sure ArlCo is THAT different) the places where we are looking at PBLs or buffered lanes are places where the absence of anything resembling a grid leaves no alternative to high volume stroads. If Isabella is biking there at all, she is riding on the sidewalk, which as you point out above is not better (and in some ways is worse) than a car protected PBL. It is simply not realistic, IMO, to think that the absence of PBLs leads to more “interested but concerned” cyclists taking the lane on stroads (or even using the conventional bike lanes in many instances).

As for how Isabella bikes on a PBL, she does not really need terribly good evasion techniques. She can deal with intersections by basically coming close to a stop or even stopping at each one. When she sees something like what happened at K and 15th, she would simply wait for the obstruction to be resolved. Which is basically the way she would have ridden on the sidewalk. I mean she is riding to get some ice cream, not late for work after a 10 mile commute.

I do agree, though, that we should A. Prioritize PBLs in places where parallel low traffic streets are not available (in Arlington, that suggests for example that improving bike boulevards on 9th and 12th S are much higher priorities than trying for a PBL on Columbia Pike – in Alexandria that means the best accommodation N-S in Old Town is a bike blvd on Royal – whether the E-W PBLs once proposed for Cameron and Prince were good ideas is debatable, but that is academic as the City has decided to go with conventional bike lanes there) B. Two way cycle tracks should be avoided. C. As Mstone suggests we should look at ways to build PBLs that make escape easier. D We should encourage more cycling by experienced adults who are riding more slowly and cautiously, to model to the Isabellas how to use the new infra. Best if Isabella rides to the ice cream shop with her parents first, I guess.

[lordofthemark]

@Tim Kelley 137470 wrote:

Sounds like you need protected intersections to go with your protected lanes:

To follow up on this and MStone’s post, that is a key point – and one often raised by moderate VCers. That if you are going to do “real Dutch style” infra, great – but what we get is on the cheap seg infra (typically inserted for its traffic calming value), that aggravates the worst aspects of seg infra (some of which Dismal has pointed out). Do we have the resources and political will to do first class Seg Infra? Do we have the numbers of current and (short term) prospective users to justify it?

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 137419 wrote:

I have no problem with buffered lanes.

I, too , have no problem with buffered lanes. In fact, I don’t really have a problem with no lanes at all. I ride on the Whitehurst, and when I worked in DC I enjoyed the whole urban guerilla, squeeze-through-take-the-front-of-the-pack-to-the-next-light game, etc.

But what you and I and the rest of the 2% “strong & fearless” riders have no problem with is irrelevant. 98% of people will never ride their bikes on the Whitehurst freeway no matter how loudly I tell them it’s perfectly safe.
And the first thing I hear from half the people I bump into who see my helmet and bag and realize I biked to wherever we are is, “Isn’t that dangerous?”

People are afraid to ride their bikes. They are afraid of cars. This is a fact. Buffered lanes are better than regular lanes are better than no lanes for making people feel more comfortable. Protected lanes are even better. Separated infrastructure like trails are even better. Are the PBLs around here perfect? Not yet, but it would be a big mistake to backtrack on continuing to build better and better infrastructure and improving it as we learn what works and what doesn’t.

Tim’s link to “Isabella” is exactly right. We should make our new plan with that goal in mind: making a network that we would be comfortable sending our 12-year-old children out to ride on.

[Tim Kelley]

@Steve O 137477 wrote:

Tim’s link to “Isabella” is exactly right. We should make our new plan with that goal in mind: making a network that we would be comfortable sending our 12-year-old children out to ride on.

[Rockford10]

@lordofthemark 137471 wrote:

She can deal with intersections by basically coming close to a stop or even stopping at each one. When she sees something like what happened at K and 15th, she would simply wait for the obstruction to be resolved.

Really? I (sometimes) ride on the Gallows Road bike lane and HATE it because there are many cars turing right, through my lane, to the middle school, 7-11 or numerous other businesses. Cars are going 40+ MPH a few inches to my left. Isabella might be able to get away with stopping at each cross-street, because the cyclist behind her would realize she’s an unpredictable kid out looking to score a double dip, but I can’t. The cyclist behind me I didn’t realize was there would run into me pronto. Don’t even consider the dangerous debris in the lane. Quick maneuvers with sand/gravel are not a good combination.

Tysons – America’s Next Great City. :rolleyes:

[lordofthemark]

Well naturally. The bike lanes on Gallows are not low stress – they are conventional bike lanes next to a stroad. I doubt many “interested but concerned” riders take them, especially with an adjacent MUP available. So it would not make sense for fast cyclists in those lanes to expect someone to stop or even slow at each cross street, I guess. I was thinking of PBL’s.

I must admit the only PBLs I have ridden more than once or twice are the ones on Eads, and they had very few riders when I was there (in the late fall and winter) so slowing down at the intersections was not a problem. No one was right behind me.

[DismalScientist]

@Steve O 137477 wrote:

But what you and I and the rest of the 2% “strong & fearless” riders have no problem with is irrelevant. 98% of people will never ride their bikes on the Whitehurst freeway no matter how loudly I tell them it’s perfectly safe.

I am not a “strong & fearless” rider. I am competent and defensive. Fearless are those folks that blast through red lights.

@Steve O 137477 wrote:

People are afraid to ride their bikes. They are afraid of cars. This is a fact. Buffered lanes are better than regular lanes are better than no lanes for making people feel more comfortable. Protected lanes are even better. Separated infrastructure like trails are even better. Are the PBLs around here perfect? Not yet, but it would be a big mistake to backtrack on continuing to build better and better infrastructure and improving it as we learn what works and what doesn’t.

The problem with this is that it may be true in terms of newbie comfort, I don’t think it’s true in terms of actual safety. At some point, I think PBL advocates become complicit in bad cycling education.

Imagine what would happen if we went full Dutch, with folks tooling along separate bike paths at 7 mph and these were respected by drivers. You can be damn sure that I’ll still be in the streets because I don’t want to double my commute time.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 137493 wrote:

The problem with this is that it may be true in terms of newbie comfort, I don’t think it’s true in terms of actual safety.

As I think we have discussed before there is some debate about that. The argument is often made that more bike accidents are at intersections than sideswipes or hit from behind, ergo taking the lane is safer. And some ancient study on sidewalk riding (which did not adjust for cyclist experience) is cited for the dangers of seg infra. A more recent study suggests that actual PBLs are just as safe as taking the lane, and a good bit safer than conventional bike lanes, but there were also methodological problems with that one, IIUC.

Imagine what would happen if we went full Dutch, with folks tooling along separate bike paths at 7 mph and these were respected by drivers. You can be damn sure that I’ll still be in the streets because I don’t want to double my commute time.

In that case a very large percentage of the drivers you would be sharing the lane with would also be riders (or have close relatives who ride) so you might find that would also be better.

Here BTW are the definitions Portland developed http://bikeportland.org/2006/12/07/what-type-of-cyclist-are-you-2650

[Author]

Posts