Good News on Infrastructure thread

[Terpfan]

This was over on FABB and WashCycle:
http://www.virginiadot.org/news/resources/Northern_Virginia/NVA_Paving_Bike_Facilities.pdf

I’m particularly happy as they’re building a bike lane on Belle View Blvd/Beacon Hill Rd from the Parkway all the way to Rt 1 and that’s my route home. Score.

[bobco85]

The reconfiguration of Wilson Blvd between Bluemont Park (Manchester St) and the Safeway (Frederick St) from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with bike lanes is complete!

Reference: Wilson Boulevard Improvements http://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/wilson-boulevard-improvements/

Note: July 2014 images from Google Maps Street View are on the left, my photos from today are on the right

Western end of the bike lanes at Manchester St
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8749&stc=1[/IMG]

Looking uphill at the intersection with Kensington St
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8750&stc=1[/IMG]

At the top of the hill near Jefferson St
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8751&stc=1[/IMG]

The eastern end of the bike lanes behind the Safeway at Frederick St
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8752&stc=1[/IMG]

[lordofthemark]

“Advisory bike lanes” in place on Potomac Greens Drive in Alexandria

http://redbricktown.com/2015/06/advisory-bike-lanes-installed-in-alexandrias-potomac-greens/

[CaseyKane50]

@lordofthemark 117509 wrote:

“Advisory bike lanes” in place on Potomac Greens Drive in Alexandria

http://redbricktown.com/2015/06/advisory-bike-lanes-installed-in-alexandrias-potomac-greens/

Here is a photo of part of the lane. It runs for about a quarter of a mile. Currently, Potomac Greens Drive does not have an outlet, so the lane will probably not be of much benefit to most bike riders.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8822[/ATTACH]

According to the Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd/dashed_bike_lanes.cfm, Alexandria is one of five cities (Minneapolis, Edina, Richfield, in Minnesota and Columbia, Mo are the others) to be given approval to experiment with what FHA calls a Dashed Bicycle Lane.

[mstone]

What on earth is the point of an advisory bike lane in the door zone? If it’s just advisory, paint it right down the middle of the street.

[lordofthemark]

I am told many motorists will still avoid the lane and will drive more slowly in the narrower general lanes. This was advanced mainly as traffic calming desired by the neighborhood. If a few people are more comfortable riding, all the better.

[bobco85]

@CaseyKane50 117573 wrote:

Here is a photo of part of the lane. It runs for about a quarter of a mile. Currently, Potomac Greens Drive does not have an outlet, so the lane will probably not be of much benefit to most bike riders.
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8822&stc=1[/IMG]

According to the Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd/dashed_bike_lanes.cfm, Alexandria is one of five cities (Minneapolis, Edina, Richfield, in Minnesota and Columbia, Mo are the others) to be given approval to experiment with what FHA calls a Dashed Bicycle Lane.

My initial response to this is: why couldn’t they just put in sharrows that are outside the door zone going either way? I don’t like the idea of letting drivers drift into the bike lane whenever they want, even if the perception of dashed bike lanes is supposed to keep them out.

[lordofthemark]

Here is the law

“A vehicle is permitted to cross this line if they need additional space in the roadway, but only when it is safe; they must first yield to any cyclists in the bike lane before entering.”

because the remaining general lane is too narrow for cars going both ways to pass each other if they are excluded from the bike lanes, conventional bike lanes are not possible (at least as long as the parking is kept – and removing the parking would defeat the traffic calming purpose) So it is either this, or a sharrows. It is beleive that this will have more impact as a traffic calming measure than a sharrows, as well as being more encouraging to newbie and child cyclists. Note, because this whole neighborhood is one large cul de sac, and not that dense, most of the time there will not be cars passing in opposite directions, so cars will have no reason to enter the bike lanes.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 117616 wrote:

Here is the law

“A vehicle is permitted to cross this line if they need additional space in the roadway, but only when it is safe; they must first yield to any cyclists in the bike lane before entering.”

because the remaining general lane is too narrow for cars going both ways to pass each other if they are excluded from the bike lanes, conventional bike lanes are not possible (at least as long as the parking is kept – and removing the parking would defeat the traffic calming purpose) So it is either this, or a sharrows. It is beleive that this will have more impact as a traffic calming measure than a sharrows, as well as being more encouraging to newbie and child cyclists. Note, because this whole neighborhood is one large cul de sac, and not that dense, most of the time there will not be cars passing in opposite directions, so cars will have no reason to enter the bike lanes.

1) has any driver, ever, refused to cross a solid line to get around an obstruction?

2) would any police officer ever ticket such an offense, and would the ticket be upheld?

3) if it’s a quiet road with little traffic, why tell cyclists to ride directly next to the parked cars instead of right down the middle?

4) if the goal is traffic calming, why not just stripe a single lane down the middle of the street with arrows showing two way traffic and leave bikes out of it?

This is a pure “look at how many miles of bike lanes we have!” project, not anything that benefits cyclists in the least. Conflating traffic calming and bike projects just distracts from real bike projects and gives ammunition to those who complain that the bike projects are a waste of money because nobody uses them.

If you’re really that determined to use the bike lane as your traffic calming, then paint in a buffer between the parking lane and the bike lane to encourage drivers to move all the way to the curb and get the bikes further from the doors.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 117619 wrote:

1) has any driver, ever, refused to cross a solid line to get around an obstruction?

I dunno, maybe. T&ES seems to think so.

3) if it’s a quiet road with little traffic, why tell cyclists to ride directly next to the parked cars instead of right down the middle?

Note, again, why a sharrows does not work here – it does not calm traffic. The goal is to narrow the general travel lanes.

Note, I also asked at the BPAC meeting if this made sense – I said that on a road this mellow, I would prefer to have no striping, and just take the lane – since it is so easy for cars to pass, with no center stripe, and there being little opposing traffic. The response was that many cyclists are not as confident as I am (!!!!) I thinik I saidsomething about how slow and unVC I am, but the point was made that this will be used by children and other people more reluctant to take the lane than even I am.

4) if the goal is traffic calming, why not just stripe a single lane down the middle of the street with arrows showing two way traffic and leave bikes out of it?

Because much of the time there is no two way traffic, That single lane would be wide enough to encourage speeding (this is a 25MPH zone) You still have a one single lane down the middle of the street, but now you have these striped lanes, that make drivers think their lane is narrower (it is not when there is no cyclists, but I am told they will still think it is) and so they will be less likely to exceed the speed limit.

This is a pure “look at how many miles of bike lanes we have!” project, not anything that benefits cyclists in the least. Conflating traffic calming and bike projects just distracts from real bike projects and gives ammunition to those who complain that the bike projects are a waste of money because nobody uses them.

My sense of the politics of this is that the neighborhood really wanted it – they do want traffic calming, and this is the cheapest practical way to achieve it. BTW, I walked in that area the other evening, and there were riders using it. I doubt anyone in the neighborhood will complain, because they all wanted this – and motorists from elsewhere will seldom see it, because they have no reason to go there.

I

[scoot]

@mstone 117619 wrote:

This is a pure “look at how many miles of bike lanes we have!” project, not anything that benefits cyclists in the least.

Bingo. Why put bike lanes on Beauregard Street / Quaker Lane / etc. when you can instead just put them in cul-de-sacs where they won’t get in anyone’s way?

Conflating traffic calming and bike projects just distracts from real bike projects and gives ammunition to those who complain that the bike projects are a waste of money because nobody uses them.

Perhaps. But traffic calming, if done right, can be better for bicyclists than a “bike project”.

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 117632 wrote:

Bingo. Why put bike lanes on Beauregard Street / Quaker Lane / etc. when you can instead just put them in cul-de-sacs where they won’t get in anyone’s way?

I am skeptical that opposing this would have increased the chances of bike lanes on those roads. It might have lost BPAC an ally, by alienating folks in this neighborhood who wanted this.

[PotomacCyclist]

@mstone 117619 wrote:

1) has any driver, ever, refused to cross a solid line to get around an obstruction?

I’ve seen this once or twice, in a very odd situation. On one occasion, an older man was driving a car. I only saw this later on. I was riding on the road. (This was a few years ago, so I don’t remember where it was.) I probably should have taken the full lane, but there was no traffic and there were clear sightlines. I figured that if a driver rode up, he or she would move slightly across the center line to give me a wide berth.

But this driver tried to squeeze by, passing just a few inches from me. I looked over to see what the heck was going on. I guessed that the driver was in his 60s. He appeared to be gripping the wheel very tightly and concentrating intently. The first thought in my mind was that he had an old-fashioned notion about not crossing the solid center line, no matter what. Not even if there was no oncoming traffic and there were no blind turns or intersections coming up. He saw that rule about the center line as more important than passing far too closely to me.

Fortunately nothing happened in terms of contact, but I wasn’t pleased. I think I shouted something like, “What’s going on?” but I doubt the driver heard me. I don’t think he was being malicious, but he was very misguided. A human life is more important than a rule about crossing a few inches over a solid center line, whether or not that is authorized. It would be similar to someone jaywalking to save someone’s life. Jaywalking is a minor traffic offense in most areas, but jaywalking on an empty street is hardly an outrageous infraction. And it is even less objectionable if someone jaywalked to protect someone. But someone with a strict law-and-order mindset might think that jaywalking is not acceptable in any circumstances, which I think is silly.

(Another hypothetical is if you saw a little child fall into a swimming pool on private property and you were walking by at that moment. I would certainly trespass to pull the child out of the water.)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 117630 wrote:

Note, again, why a sharrows does not work here – it does not calm traffic. The goal is to narrow the general travel lanes
…
Because much of the time there is no two way traffic, That single lane would be wide enough to encourage speeding (this is a 25MPH zone) You still have a one single lane down the middle of the street, but now you have these striped lanes, that make drivers think their lane is narrower (it is not when there is no cyclists, but I am told they will still think it is) and so they will be less likely to exceed the speed limit.[/quote]

We seem to not be communicating. I’m talking about making the same center lane, the same width, just calling it “one narrow two way lane to calm traffic because drivers are incapable of going the speed limit on their own” rather than “a bike project”. Cyclists would get the same benefit of calmed traffic, and people who are determined not to take the lane could ride on the shoulder. But with the added benefit of not announcing that cyclists are supposed to be in the box next to the car doors even on a quiet neighborhood street.

@PotomacCyclist 117639 wrote:

I’ve seen this once or twice, in a very odd situation. On one occasion, an older man was driving a car. I only saw this later on. I was riding on the road. (This was a few years ago, so I don’t remember where it was.) I probably should have taken the full lane, but there was no traffic and there were clear sightlines. I figured that if a driver rode up, he or she would move slightly across the center line to give me a wide berth.

But this driver tried to squeeze by, passing just a few inches from me. I looked over to see what the heck was going on. I guessed that the driver was in his 60s. He appeared to be gripping the wheel very tightly and concentrating intently. The first thought in my mind was that he had an old-fashioned notion about not crossing the solid center line, no matter what. Not even if there was no oncoming traffic and there were no blind turns or intersections coming up. He saw that rule about the center line as more important than passing far too closely to me.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I should have specified “as long as the obstacle isn’t a human on a bike”. If it were a delivery truck, a cop, a tree, a big pothole, anything else, they’d have no problem crossing the line.

[chris_s]

How about creating a new discussion topic about advisory bike lanes and letting this thread go back to Good News?

[Author]

Posts