Bike Friendly Ballston Campaign Kick-Off

[bobco85]

Seeing this made me immediately add this to my calendar. I lived for the past 5 years in Buckingham (near Ballston) and have worked in Ballston for the past 7 years, so anything happening around Quincy Street is of great importance to me in regards to cycling.

This sounds great, and I’ve got much to say, but I will save the majority of it for the meeting.

My main concerns, however, relate to the following:

• many sections of Quincy Street have bump-outs for pedestrian crossings; in order for protected bike lanes to be used, they might have to remove these bump-outs (very expensive) or have cyclists zig-zagging as the bike lane reaches each bump-out (not as convenient)
• the south end of Quincy Street at Glebe Road is not a dead end and should not be for cycling infrastructure – the bike infrastructure should continue so that there are options for cyclists heading southbound as the road becomes Henderson Road at the very least until it reaches George Mason Drive; it becomes a useful connection for crossing George Mason Drive or getting onto Thomas Street (low-traffic road that parallels Glebe and George Mason between Carlin Springs and Route 50)
• what about the Marriott pick-up/drop-off area? Drivers there tend to be the biggest offenders when it comes to blocking bike lanes, so what will be done to prevent them from pulling into the bike lane like we see happening on the L Street cycletrack?

If we can get something like the protected bike lanes on Hayes Street and Eads Street, that’d be really awesome!

[Guus]

Chris, this is awesome. Is there a flyer (PDF) perhaps? Would like to handout a flyer or two to bicyclists that I know from my daughter’s pre-K.

[scoot]

Yes the present configuration on N Quincy is poor (especially the Washington Blvd intersection). But would a protected bike lane make N Quincy safer?

Generally, protected bike lanes reduce the risk of being struck by overtaking vehicles while increasing the risk of being struck by turning vehicles. So they have the most utility on roads where vehicle speeds are high and turns are relatively rare. On the other hand, they are counterproductive on roads with slow traffic and a lot of turning vehicles. This street is a textbook example of the latter category.

The current overtaking hazard is negligible because traffic speeds are extremely low. The phrase “fast moving traffic” is not an accurate description of N Quincy Street. (North of Washington Blvd, traffic speeds do increase a little, but by then you’re out of Ballston.) Given all the pedestrian/turning/parking activity on this street and the series of signalized intersections with higher-volume arterials, drivers rarely exceed the 25MPH speed limit on Quincy anywhere between Glebe Rd and Washington Blvd. I’ve ridden on Quincy through Ballston hundreds of times at perhaps 15-18 MPH. On average I will be passed by one or two vehicles through the whole stretch (note that I primarily stay in the travel lane, to avoid all the car doors and double parkers, which does dissuade some drivers who would have passed me in the door-zone bike lane). In fact, I will often arrive at a traffic signal alone wondering what happened to everyone who was behind me at the previous one. Why? Because the vast majority of the vehicles using Quincy along this stretch do not stay on it for more than a block or two. Rather, most drivers are turning into or out of this road during this stretch, or else both.

I would like to see some data on this, but I doubt that anyone collects it at the level I’d be interested (e.g. what fraction of the northbound vehicles going straight through the intersection at Wilson Blvd are still on the road and continuing straight through Fairfax Dr, etc.).

Squeezing a protected bike lane between parked vehicles and the curb would compound the danger at the conflict points with all these drivers turning onto or off of Quincy. Many drivers turning onto Quincy will overlook the PBL and cross it without yielding; even those that do yield will then block it as they scan the street for an opening. Those turning off of Quincy will have compromised visibility of bicycles wherever there are parked cars. Given how many driveways and garages line this stretch of road, you would need to eliminate almost all of the parallel parking in order to mitigate these issues.

[chris_s]

@bobco85 125810 wrote:

[*]many sections of Quincy Street have bump-outs for pedestrian crossings; in order for protected bike lanes to be used, they might have to remove these bump-outs (very expensive) or have cyclists zig-zagging as the bike lane reaches each bump-out (not as convenient)

Our initial ask is zig-zag, which also helps make cyclists more visible at the intersections.

@bobco85 125810 wrote:

[*]the south end of Quincy Street at Glebe Road is not a dead end and should not be for cycling infrastructure – the bike infrastructure should continue so that there are options for cyclists heading southbound as the road becomes Henderson Road at the very least until it reaches George Mason Drive; it becomes a useful connection for crossing George Mason Drive or getting onto Thomas Street (low-traffic road that parallels Glebe and George Mason between Carlin Springs and Route 50)

Agreed, but we’re a new, small group and don’t want to bite off more than we can chew. After getting a successful campaign or two under our belt, we intended to start trying to move mountains. Quincy is step one in an eventual vision for a north-south connector that stretches from county line to county line.

@bobco85 125810 wrote:

[*]what about the Marriott pick-up/drop-off area? Drivers there tend to be the biggest offenders when it comes to blocking bike lanes, so what will be done to prevent them from pulling into the bike lane like we see happening on the L Street cycletrack?

I think I’ve ridden L once in my life – do the drivers there just pull over top of flexposts or is it not flex-posted there?

[bobco85]

@chris_s 125985 wrote:

Our initial ask is zig-zag, which also helps make cyclists more visible at the intersections.

I think the zig-zag is fine because I do support keeping the pedestrian bumpouts.

Agreed, but we’re a new, small group and don’t want to bite off more than we can chew. After getting a successful campaign or two under our belt, we intended to start trying to move mountains. Quincy is step one in an eventual vision for a north-south connector that stretches from county line to county line.

I understand not wanting to overdo it, but I do want to make sure that cyclists aren’t just left on their own once they reach Glebe. I think that even putting sharrows on the block between Glebe and Thomas would help (even though it would not fulfill normal road widths for sharrow use), as the right lane merges into the left and cyclists are forced to merge into the narrow lane with traffic that IME is not very friendly to slower-moving traffic (i.e., cyclists).

I think I’ve ridden L once in my life – do the drivers there just pull over top of flexposts or is it not flex-posted there?

This is a good example of the situation around hotels/driveways on the L Street cycletrack: https://goo.gl/maps/t2XCHmuwzhS2

• This issue has improved due to narrowing the bike lane (it was originally wide enough that people would just drive in it like a normal travel lane) and (for better or worse) adding flexposts in the center of the entry points into the lane at the beginning of each block (you can see this in the image)
• People will sometimes pull into the lane, then back-up (blocking the bike lane but not blocking the driveway) to park/load/unload/stand as shown by the white car with its driver sitting there looking at his phone
• At hotels, the bike lane actually switches places with the leftmost lane so there is a pull-in loading zone which some people use for parking

P.S. – I just noticed this, but the Google Streetview I linked to happens to be in front of The Quincy hotel.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 125862 wrote:

Yes the present configuration on N Quincy is poor (especially the Washington Blvd intersection). But would a protected bike lane make N Quincy safer?

Yes.

This section is on the route from our house to my kids’ preschool. Some subset of my family rides this stretch at least four times every school day (and lots of other days). We are very familiar with the timing of the lights, as some of the drivers seem to be as well. Drivers will speed to try to make lights. We’re also familiar with the dangers and general behavior of people who drive, ride and walk this stretch.

The main issues for adult cyclists on this stretch are:

The intersection with Washington Boulevard. Going southbound, cars will often pass very close to a cyclist to get ahead of them at the light, especially where the sharrows start. Also, because there are usually no cars parked there, the natural movement is for the bike to come up in the parked car lane, and sometimes even squeeze by the stopped cars to end up at the front of the line at the stop light. This actually works fine when you get to the front before the light turns green, but leads to an awkward merge when a cyclist is in the parking lane when the light turns. (I don’t ride through the parking spaces, but I see people do it often).

The intersection with Washington Boulevard. Going northbound, the bike lane just disappears at the intersection. There’s room for bikes to stay to the right through the intersection and for about one car length, but that leads to a dangerous merge right after the intersection. So people on bikes either take the lane at the light (usually to the grumbling of drivers) or get stuck behind the first parked car until the line of cars passes. Even when I take the lane, I’ve been passed very closely here.

Pinch points with medians: most of the road is wide enough that a person can be on a bike on the left side of the bike lane (out of the door zone), and cars can pass in the travel lane while maintaining 3 feet from the person on a bike. However, there are a few places where the travel lane isn’t wide enough for that, and there is a median so cars can’t cross out of the lane. I am usually passed very closely at these pinch points.

The drivers that don’t bother to pull all the way into a space to pick up/drop off people between 9th and 5th.

The dumpster.

Protected bike lanes would address all of these issues.

Moreover, this isn’t really about the people confident enough to bike on this stretch today: it’s about the newbies. It’s about the kids. It’s about the elderly. It’s about the “interested but concerned” who are happy to ride on the Custis Trail, but aren’t willing to brave being buzzed by the Marymount shuttle in order to get a bagel at Einstein’s. The protection from moving traffic will make them feel safe and more confident along this stretch.

With a well designed protected bike lane, I’d be willing to let my 5 year old ride her own bike to preschool. I’d never do that on what’s there now.

Which leads us to the well-designed issue. Yes, the design absolutely must take into account turning vehicles. We’ll need signage and pavement markings to alert drivers where they would be crossing a protected bike lane. We’ll need to make sure the sight-lines are such that turning drivers can see people on bikes and vice versa.

But the one change that will make these protected bike lanes safer is that they will lead to more people on riding bikes on this road. When there’s a steady stream of bikes in the PBL, drivers expect bikes to be in the PBL. I’d bet most of the drivers on this stretch drive it regularly, if not daily, so the education component is very manageable.

@bobco85 125997 wrote:

I think the zig-zag is fine because I do support keeping the pedestrian bumpouts.

Actually, we’re not specifically asking for any one configuration, just that the lanes be protected. We have taken measurements, and think that you could do zig-zag, but of course you could move nubs. And yes, moving a nub is more expensive than just painting, but it’s not very expensive in the grand scheme of road building. If we take out the nubs, the pedestrians could still have a refuge in line with where the nubs are today, they’ll just have to cross the cycle track to get to it. Their crossing distance over the main road will be shorter. I’ve seen this work very well when well designed.

@bobco85 125997 wrote:

I understand not wanting to overdo it, but I do want to make sure that cyclists aren’t just left on their own once they reach Glebe. I think that even putting sharrows on the block between Glebe and Thomas would help (even though it would not fulfill normal road widths for sharrow use), as the right lane merges into the left and cyclists are forced to merge into the narrow lane with traffic that IME is not very friendly to slower-moving traffic (i.e., cyclists).

As someone who rides this ALL THE TIME, Henderson* is not a problem. First of all, traffic volume is much lower, at least in my experience. Secondly, while the bike lane ends on the Quincy side, a second travel lane magically appears on the Henderson side. Yes, it would be better to call this a “bike lane” but it’s wide, and I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a car in it (right turning cars may turn into it for a second, but immediately move over). The issue is when that lane suddenly goes away and the street gets narrower a few yards from the turn to Thomas. A sign that indicated bikes would be merging there would be a good thing, but it’s so low on my priority list. There just aren’t many cars on this stretch. Most of the time, light turns green, I take the right lane on my bike and drivers take the left lane, and all of the drivers that have gotten through the green light pass me before that merge point. (Very different from nb after the light with Washington). Plus, since I turn left onto Thomas, I would have to merge about there anyway to pull left and turn.

*Quincy changes names at Glebe to Henderson, which is useful for our discussion.

And a final note: the AAC has been discussing a much longer north-south connection, using George Mason and Henderson/Quincy. This is just the first piece of that vision. We chose this piece first because it is the most visible, most attainable, and will have the most immediate impact on cycling in Arlington. The hope is a win here can lead to quick wins along the rest of the corridor.
(We did not chose this because it’s my family’s route to preschool. Promise. It wasn’t even my first choice.)

[chris_s]

@Guus 125818 wrote:

Chris, this is awesome. Is there a flyer (PDF) perhaps? Would like to handout a flyer or two to bicyclists that I know from my daughter’s pre-K.

Ask and you shall receive!

[ATTACH]9844[/ATTACH]

[chris_s]

Wednesday! Don’t forget to RSVP!

[bobco85]

@chris_s 126413 wrote:

Wednesday! Don’t forget to RSVP!

Again (like the Boundary Stone Ride) I added it to my personal calendar but forgot to actually register for the event! RSVP completed.

[chris_s]

Tonight!

[chris_s]

Many thanks to the 35 or so very supportive folks who gave up part of their evening to walk Quincy and talked about infrastructure. Onward to victory!

[chris_s]

The Bike-Friendly Ballston Campaign Marches on!

Sign the petition now for a Bike-Friendly Ballston, then spread the word to your friends via email discussion lists, Facebook Groups, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Neighborhood Newsletters or *gasp* in-person contact.

http://waba.org/bikeballston

Seriously sign it now. What are you waiting for?

[Author]

Posts