Arlington Vision Zero

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198617 wrote:

The statement that the bike lanes built are for the lycra crowd ends up with a fair amount of truth to it, as they become recreational facilities instead of transportation ones.

Which bike lanes in Arlington or Alexandria (or DC for that matter) do you think are not used for transportation?

In Arlington I routinely use the Eads street lanes, and the Long Bridge Drive lanes, as part of my commute. I use lanes on 34th street in Fairlington to ride to synagogue. I use the King Street lanes in Alexandria to ride to Old Town for any number of reasons. I use the bike lanes on Eye Street in DC as part of my commute, and see lots of other people doing so.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 198619 wrote:

Which bike lanes in Arlington or Alexandria (or DC for that matter) do you think are not used for transportation?

In Arlington I routinely use the Eads street lanes, and the Long Bridge Drive lanes, as part of my commute. I use lanes on 34th street in Fairlington to ride to synagogue. I use the King Street lanes in Alexandria to ride to Old Town for any number of reasons. I use the bike lanes on Eye Street in DC as part of my commute, and see lots of other people doing so.

There’s a common perception that many of the bike lanes are largely used for recreational riding by the lycra crowd, vice transportation. This is going to happen where there are gaps in the network or the lanes are unsafe (e.g. door lane zone or a lot of mixing at intersections). If you look at the bike counter data on unprotected bike lanes, most all of them are extremely low, and barely justify their existance.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198622 wrote:

There’s a common perception that many of the bike lanes are largely used for recreational riding by the lycra crowd, vice transportation. This is going to happen where there are gaps in the network or the lanes are unsafe (e.g. door lane zone or a lot of mixing at intersections). If you look at the bike counter data on unprotected bike lanes, most all of them are extremely low, and barely justify their existance.

1. The “common perception” is false, and AFAICT is just dishonest rhetoric from NIMBYs (and they usually just claim no one at all is riding in them)

Also I wonder if you actually believe that “lycra” = recreational? Lots of people commute to work in lycra, and plenty of people make recreational rides in regular clothes. The equation is pretty much something done only by people ignorant of, and generally hostile to, biking.

2 There is no where in the USA (in fact I think few places in the English speaking world) where there are not gaps in the network, bad intersections, or door zone lanes.

3. The most heavily used bike lane in the region, 15th Street in NW DC, has a number of challenging intersections, and its design has been critiqued by many riders. Nonetheless it is crowded to the point of justifying nearby parallel PBLs

4. Unprotected bike lanes are typically justified as general traffic calming – but also provide connections to better bike infra (making the latter more heavily used) They also often place hold for better infra. On 1st Street SE for example unprotected lanes came first, and will soon be replaced by PBLs. They are also trivially cheap to install. So not much is really needed to justify them, unless of course you heavily value the higher motor vehicle speeds that accompany undieted roads in the places where unprotected bike lanes are typically installed.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 198624 wrote:

1. The “common perception” is false, and AFAICT is just dishonest rhetoric from NIMBYs (and they usually just claim no one at all is riding in them)

Also I wonder if you actually believe that “lycra” = recreational? Lots of people commute to work in lycra, and plenty of people make recreational rides in regular clothes. The equation is pretty much something done only by people ignorant of, and generally hostile to, biking.

2 There is no where in the USA (in fact I think few places in the English speaking world) where there are not gaps in the network, bad intersections, or door zone lanes.

3. The most heavily used bike lane in the region, 15th Street in NW DC, has a number of challenging intersections, and its design has been critiqued by many riders. Nonetheless it is crowded to the point of justifying nearby parallel PBLs

4. Unprotected bike lanes are typically justified as general traffic calming – but also provide connections to better bike infra (making the latter more heavily used) They also often place hold for better infra. On 1st Street SE for example unprotected lanes came first, and will soon be replaced by PBLs. They are also trivially cheap to install. So not much is really needed to justify them, unless of course you heavily value the higher motor vehicle speeds that accompany undieted roads in the places where unprotected bike lanes are typically installed.

If Arlington were building PBLs across the county similar to 15th St NW, that would be a massive evolution from what they are doing today and I probably wouldn’t have much issue with the weak language in the Vision Zero document. The reality is almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.

Even though DC has issues with getting some of their PBLs going, the ones they do build are pretty good and tend to be contiguous. You look at projects such as 20th/21st NW or P St SW and those types of projects are almost never even proposed in Arlington, let alone built.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198625 wrote:

If Arlington were building PBLs across the county similar to 15th St NW, that would be a massive evolution from what they are doing today and I probably wouldn’t have much issue with the weak language in the Vision Zero document. The reality is almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.

Even though DC has issues with getting some of their PBLs going, the ones they do build are pretty good and tend to be contiguous. You look at projects such as 20th/21st NW or P St SW and those types of projects are almost never even proposed in Arlington, let alone built.

DC has a bike commute mode share of about 5%. (you can probably double that for transporation riders for whom biking is not their predominant commute mode) A constituency of at least 10%. ArlCo’s bike commute mode share is well under half of DC’s.

Non bike commuters in DC are more likely to be transit users or walkers than in people who drive alone to work. Not so, yet, in Arlington.

DC has gotten to where it is by years of WABA advocacy for incremental bike infra, including loads of incomplete bike lanes, door zone bike lanes, etc, etc. (Arlington also has generally better traffic enforcement than DC, other than the automated enforcement in DC)

By all means advocate to make PBLs more complete where possible, or to substitute a PBL for a door zone lane (you could really do a lot by getting involved in lobbying to make the Crystal Drive SB lane into a PBL – one of the worst door zone bike lanes in the region, and no good reason I know but inertia why its not already a PBL) but that does not mean attacking all other bike lane projects.

And its really not about the language in the VZ doc. Alexandria has a better VZ doc, with specific numeric goals, and lots of details on programs.

We still have FEWER PBLs than Arlington. Fewer buffered bike lanes than Arlington.

I can really only encourage getting actively involved in bike advocacy. You will learn so much, and your posts to the forum will be better informed.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198625 wrote:

If Arlington were building PBLs across the county similar to 15th St NW, that would be a massive evolution from what they are doing today and I probably wouldn’t have much issue with the weak language in the Vision Zero document. The reality is almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.

Even though DC has issues with getting some of their PBLs going, the ones they do build are pretty good and tend to be contiguous. You look at projects such as 20th/21st NW or P St SW and those types of projects are almost never even proposed in Arlington, let alone built.

Have you ridden on 1st St SE. On Eye Street SE? DC has plenty of non contiguous PBLs.

[dbb]

@zsionakides 198622 wrote:

There’s a common perception that many of the bike lanes are largely used for recreational riding by the lycra crowd, vice transportation. This is going to happen where there are gaps in the network or the lanes are unsafe (e.g. door lane zone or a lot of mixing at intersections). If you look at the bike counter data on unprotected bike lanes, most all of them are extremely low, and barely justify their existance.

While the data used to make this graphic is old (and the data portal is currently down for maintenance – whats up with that?), you can see the rush hour on the Mount Vernon Trail. I’d expect the big trails would show more recreational riders as they are, IMO, likely to be less experienced and comfortable on regular bike lanes.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21267[/ATTACH]

[dasgeh]

I think we should remember where we are in the process: we are defining goals for the Vision Zero program to start to develop an action plan. This isn’t the action plan. “Strive to” makes sense for goals, particularly when we’re talking about things like “ensuring safety for all users”.

@zsionakides 198625 wrote:

If Arlington were building PBLs across the county similar to 15th St NW, that would be a massive evolution from what they are doing today and I probably wouldn’t have much issue with the weak language in the Vision Zero document. The reality is almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.

Even though DC has issues with getting some of their PBLs going, the ones they do build are pretty good and tend to be contiguous. You look at projects such as 20th/21st NW or P St SW and those types of projects are almost never even proposed in Arlington, let alone built.

I often stand up and say Arlington should be doing better and moving faster in order to spur behavioral change. But it’s not fair to say that “almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.” Quincy Street is a seriously good project. The part south of Washington (north of Washington will be revisited next year) is fully buffered, and Arlington has been tweaking when they see the need to. There should be money to turn “buffered” into “protected” in the CIP. That’s not watered down. And it’s actually convincing people — including senior leaders in the County — that PBLs work and that biking is a real way to get around.

Veitch is good, Wilson is good, Eads is good. I would ride with kids on all of those. There are more coming in this year’s batch of repaving. In the past year, there haven’t been many other projects built. Of those designed, yes, there have been some disappointments. But more wins than disappointments.

And I will pit the cycletrack along the realigned section of Columbia Pike by ANC against the 20/21st NW cycletrack any day. That is an excellent design that Arlington staff fought hard for and got.

Again, I think we can do better. This next CIP provides a serious opportunity to get funding to move faster. I think if we can get the money, we have the staff that will design good projects.

[arlcxrider]

As a daily user of Quincy, I respectfully disagree that it’s a “seriously good project.” Southbound especially it’s a non-stop sh!t$how between Fairfax and Glebe. It starts with the never-ending utility work at Fairfax that has all but obliterated the lane between 9th and Fairfax. Then there’s the habitual lane blockers at the Marriott Residence Inn, the Domino’s pizza delivery guys that dart across the lane without stopping (or looking), and the Mercedes dealer–their trucks constantly park in the lane just north of Glebe. In my view there are far too potential interruptions, drop-off zones, driveways (pizza), and other minor intersections for the lane to operate successfully, absent a massive increase in enforcement activity. 5 times out of ten I have to “take the lane” on Quincy.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 198630 wrote:

I think we should remember where we are in the process: we are defining goals for the Vision Zero program to start to develop an action plan. This isn’t the action plan. “Strive to” makes sense for goals, particularly when we’re talking about things like “ensuring safety for all users”.

I often stand up and say Arlington should be doing better and moving faster in order to spur behavioral change. But it’s not fair to say that “almost every bike lane project in the county is heavily water downed by the time it gets to execution, to the point where it only serves highly confident riders.” Quincy Street is a seriously good project. The part south of Washington (north of Washington will be revisited next year) is fully buffered, and Arlington has been tweaking when they see the need to. There should be money to turn “buffered” into “protected” in the CIP. That’s not watered down. And it’s actually convincing people — including senior leaders in the County — that PBLs work and that biking is a real way to get around.

Veitch is good, Wilson is good, Eads is good. I would ride with kids on all of those. There are more coming in this year’s batch of repaving. In the past year, there haven’t been many other projects built. Of those designed, yes, there have been some disappointments. But more wins than disappointments.

And I will pit the cycletrack along the realigned section of Columbia Pike by ANC against the 20/21st NW cycletrack any day. That is an excellent design that Arlington staff fought hard for and got.

Again, I think we can do better. This next CIP provides a serious opportunity to get funding to move faster. I think if we can get the money, we have the staff that will design good projects.

Quincy St was watered down before it even got to the public for discussion – it had gaps in even the most bike friendly design which was not even up to NACTO standards, which it’s supposed to be per the actual plan the county adopted. I would not let my young children ride on what came out of that design.

Veitch is good. Wilson is mediocre and short. Eads is hit or miss and has gaps.

The Columbia Pike cycletrack was easy as it didn’t require making any tradeoffs, except investing money in the corridor. 20th/21st takes away a lot of street parking in a dense area and it’s getting built. When Arlington builds something like that along Crystal Drive, Walter Reed Drive, or somewhere else that requires real leadership, then I’ll believe it’s getting real. Until then, it’s the same leadership that can only do easy projects, and often not even that.

[chris_s]

@dasgeh 198630 wrote:

I think we should remember where we are in the process: we are defining goals for the Vision Zero program to start to develop an action plan. This isn’t the action plan. “Strive to” makes sense for goals, particularly when we’re talking about things like “ensuring safety for all users”.

Gotta disagree here. Goals should be concrete and we should strive to meet them.

[dbb]

@chris_s 198634 wrote:

Gotta disagree here. Goals should be concrete and we should strive to meet them.

I agree with Chris. If we have concrete goals, it is at least easier to judge whether we achieved them. If we strive to have a fine bike lane (for example), we are likely to have to argue why a white stripe doesn’t count. Every. Damned. Time.

[Judd]

I was surprised by two things at the Open House:
1. The County didn’t engage a consultant to facilitate the planning process.
2. There wasn’t a presentation of crash data.

I wish draft goals wouldn’t have been made before doing a bunch of public engagement as their presence focuses and narrows people’s thinking and tends to exclude ideas.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198632 wrote:

Quincy St was watered down before it even got to the public for discussion – it had gaps in even the most bike friendly design which was not even up to NACTO standards, which it’s supposed to be per the actual plan the county adopted. I would not let my young children ride on what came out of that design.

Veitch is good. Wilson is mediocre and short. Eads is hit or miss and has gaps.

The Columbia Pike cycletrack was easy as it didn’t require making any tradeoffs, except investing money in the corridor. 20th/21st takes away a lot of street parking in a dense area and it’s getting built. When Arlington builds something like that along Crystal Drive, Walter Reed Drive, or somewhere else that requires real leadership, then I’ll believe it’s getting real. Until then, it’s the same leadership that can only do easy projects, and often not even that.

21st street is in Ward 2. Bike advocates in DC have noted that DDOT has aggressively delivered bike infra in Ward 6 (strongly pro bike CM Allen) and Ward 2 (CM Jack Evan’s effectively neutered, and most ANCs pro bike.)Not so much in wards 3, 4, 5, and especially 7 and 8.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 198706 wrote:

21st street is in Ward 2. Bike advocates in DC have noted that DDOT has aggressively delivered bike infra in Ward 6 (strongly pro bike CM Allen) and Ward 2 (CM Jack Evan’s effectively neutered, and most ANCs pro bike.)Not so much in wards 3, 4, 5, and especially 7 and 8.

Wards 2 and 6 cover downtown, the mall, and most the major employment areas in DC. Increasing bicycle accessibility in those employment centers is key to increasing bike commuting and should eventually drive greater demand in the residential oriented outer wards.

OTOH, Arlington and Alexandria have done almost nothing for cyclists in the employment centers, focusing more on their trail networks, which end short of where commuters need to go.

[Author]

Posts