"North Van Dorn Complete Streets"

[bobco85]

To get a better grasp of the segment of Van Dorn St in question, I rode it this evening on my way home from work.

I still think it’s an odd place, but that’s probably because it is a somewhat less-populated stretch (apartments on only one side, then there’s no buildings until the intersection with Braddock) and it doesn’t seem to really connect much. I saw the 25 mph speed limit sign, but the road really “feels” like it’s 35 mph.

My concern is that if this PBL were built, would it have a great effect on cycling in the area (positive result) or would it be viewed as a vanity project (negative pushback)? Given how contentious the King St bike lanes were, I foresee this coming up in a future PBL request. Looking at the Strava heat map http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-77.09890/38.83077/gray/bike it looks like cyclists have been using other options. Would cyclists be drawn toward this stretch, or would the stretch be an underutilized piece of bicycle infrastructure?

I feel like I’m letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

[lordofthemark]

Won’t Van Dorn west of Sanger get a MUP as part of the West End Transit way project? If so, it becomes a potentially low stress route from southwest Alexandria to Fairlington /Shirlington /4MRT, an alternative to Howard/early/menokin maybe? Though we have a gap between Braddock and Sanger I guess?

[lordofthemark]

The King Street Bike lanes were controversial because there were specific people who lost something of value, their parking spaces (never mind that legally they did not own the spaces ) who loses here? A generic issue of funding will not elicit the same degree of passion , I think. And how much does it really cost to put in some flex posts and a painted buffer(were you expecting more protection than that?)

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 134593 wrote:

The King Street Bike lanes were controversial because there were specific people who lost something of value, their parking spaces (never mind that legally they did not own the spaces ) who loses here? A generic issue of funding will not elicit the same degree of passion , I think. And how much does it really cost to put in some flex posts and a painted buffer(were you expecting more protection than that?)

Some people continue to complain about the Wilson Blvd road diet. I have no idea whether or not traffic congestion has actually increased there, but that’s the argument those people are making.

[bobco85]

@lordofthemark 134593 wrote:

The King Street Bike lanes were controversial because there were specific people who lost something of value, their parking spaces (never mind that legally they did not own the spaces ) who loses here? A generic issue of funding will not elicit the same degree of passion , I think. And how much does it really cost to put in some flex posts and a painted buffer(were you expecting more protection than that?)

I’m picturing a PBL akin to that of the Hayes/Eads St PBL with a buffer and flexposts, but I’d be fine with just a buffered bike lane (no flexposts).

That said, I do support a road diet that would make things safer for pedestrians and cyclists. If there are no funding issues, I will support it. I just have some concerns about how big or visible of a project this would be since Alexandria’s first PBL and its impact on cycling will come into the discussion of any future PBL’s.

@scoot 134599 wrote:

Some people continue to complain about the Wilson Blvd road diet. I have no idea whether or not traffic congestion has actually increased there, but that’s the argument those people are making.

Some people were saying that it took 20+ minutes to get from Glebe or George Mason to Manchester, but I never found that to be accurate to even the slightest. Here’s an article with the claim: https://www.arlnow.com/2015/06/04/wilson-blvd-lane-changes-provoke-love-hate-among-residents/

[chris_s]

@bobco85 134616 wrote:

Some people were saying that it took 20+ minutes to get from Glebe or George Mason to Manchester, but I never found that to be accurate to even the slightest. Here’s an article with the claim: https://www.arlnow.com/2015/06/04/wilson-blvd-lane-changes-provoke-love-hate-among-residents/

For a day or two it was really bad…because the paving contractor managed to sever the loop detector for the traffic signal at George Mason & Wilson during paving. It never really had anything to do with the lane reduction and it has long-since been resolved.

[Fairlington124]

I think this will be good in the long-run.

Assuming that there is no community resistance, it will be a relatively pain-free way of implementing PBL facilities. Once that happens though, the precedent will be set for installing PBLs where are technically feasible…rather than debate an unproven or abstract concept, planners can cite PBLs, they can show photos of PBLs in Alexandria (rather than file photos from other jurisdictions), etc.

It also sets the precedent, I think, to have PBLs whenever possible on a Complete Streets repaving. Of course there will be instances where PBLs are not technically warranted, to say nothing of political considerations. But consider the fact that the City wants to install PBLs *as a matter of routine policy*, not some special project with large amounts of spent political capital.

Also, as usual, vehicular cyclists should not speak for all cyclists. I personally would be terrified to ride on the street on North Van Dorn, because the roadway invites dangerous speeding, and along with the hills and curves, is simply dangerous. It’s very annoying, to be honest, to be told a facility is unnecessary simply because one person in particular thinks it’s unnecessary for his needs. And this is coming from a confident cyclist.

[bobco85]

@Fairlington124 134622 wrote:

Also, as usual, vehicular cyclists should not speak for all cyclists. I personally would be terrified to ride on the street on North Van Dorn, because the roadway invites dangerous speeding, and along with the hills and curves, is simply dangerous. It’s very annoying, to be honest, to be told a facility is unnecessary simply because one person in particular thinks it’s unnecessary for his needs. And this is coming from a confident cyclist.

I think you misunderstood my argument and are overgeneralizing the perspectives of vehicular cyclists. I am a vehicular cyclist, and I see the importance of installing bicycle infrastructure as a means of helping less confident/skilled cyclists to become more comfortable especially in areas that lack bicycle infrastructure. I understand that many vehicular cyclists oppose any sort of separation infrastructure between drivers and cyclists, and I strongly disagree with them on that front.

To be honest, I’m more in favor of the PBL on Van Dorn St than I was before because I understand more about the importance of having a good example in the city to show when it comes to pushing for more PBL’s. My concern is still that the PBL will be underutilized which could be used against PBL’s in the future. I think it would have greater impact if we can get bike lanes instead of sharrows on Braddock Road (southern end of this section) so cyclists have somewhere to go once it’s completed.

I am strongly in favor of the road diet. I am still on the fence (leaning toward favoring now) for installing PBL there instead of a buffered bike lane, but I do support adding some sort of bicycle infrastructure here.

[lordofthemark]

A. I can see the concern about usage, since levels of usage have been a talking point re King Street, both before and since implementation, and it comes up elsewhere. If it does not come up here (has there been any opposition?) I doubt it will become an issue ex ante. Also I kind of don’t think the motorists who live in the pocket around Braddock and Van Dorn are going to be as vocal as the folks who use Wilson. But I could be wrong.

B. If they are going to do anything, might as well get the flexposts – at least as far as politics are concerned – buffered lanes take as much room and are not going to be much cheaper (I do realize some cyclists prefer to not have flexposts)

C. I think Complete Streets on Braddock is going to be a bigger, more complex issue, and IIRC it is not listed in the top ten projects in the draft master plan, so don’t expect it soon.

[Fairlington124]

Pro-project talking points should include “Represent Alexandria residents, not commuters looking for an alternative to 395”. Talking points can also include how slower vehicle traffic will better-honor Ft Ward. Also mention how the improvements could increase visitors to the fort. Maybe also frame it as a measure to counter “BRAC/Mark Center commuters”, that the streets are “for Alexandrians” and not Mark Center commuters.

[CaseyKane50]

@lordofthemark 128101 wrote:

And sure enough, I missed the meeting.

Apparently the first meeting was limited to residents in the immediate area.

City staff will be at the BPAC meeting on February 16 at 7 pm at the Bradlee Safeway Meeting Room, 3526 and will discuss the plan.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 134641 wrote:

Also I kind of don’t think the motorists who live in the pocket around Braddock and Van Dorn are going to be as vocal as the folks who use Wilson.

I strongly support this road diet, but I would definitely expect opposition. And I don’t think the opposition will be limited to locals (was it on Wilson?). It will reduce the number of northbound vehicles that are able to get through the latter half of each cycle of the traffic signal at King St. (Presently vehicles coming off Van Dorn are not required to stop at Menokin; they whip around that corner side by side headed toward King.) This will vex the large number of commuters who cut through Van Dorn to avoid the constant congestion on 395 between Duke and King. Some of this traffic will probably switch over to Braddock/Early/Menokin if they think it will get them through the new 3-way stop sooner.

Our communities will need to take a stand for the safety of our local streets, which must not be compromised in a misguided attempt to alleviate freeways that are failing due to suburban sprawl.

[Fairlington124]

Quote:

This will vex the large number of commuters who cut through Van Dorn to avoid the constant congestion on 395 between Duke and King. Some of this traffic will probably switch over to Braddock/Early/Menokin if they think it will get them through the new 3-way stop sooner.

In relation to this concern, the talking points should double down on whether the City wants to look out for the best interests of its residents in the West End or long-distance commuters. It’s not Alexandria’s job to keep traffic on 395 moving. Degrade the speed on Van Dorn so much that even slow on 395 is better than at-speed on Van Dorn.

[Steve O]

Actually, the Wilson Blvd. experience may very well work in your favor. I don’t drive there during rush hours, but I live nearby and I have not heard a single thing at all about any problems. Whatever problems were there at first cleared up in a matter of days, AFAIK.
It might be worth touching base with Arlington to see if they have any data to support that. If so, then it’s a great case study to support this project.

[CaseyKane50]

@lordofthemark 134592 wrote:

Won’t Van Dorn west of Sanger get a MUP as part of the West End Transit way project? If so, it becomes a potentially low stress route from southwest Alexandria to Fairlington /Shirlington /4MRT, an alternative to Howard/early/menokin maybe? Though we have a gap between Braddock and Sanger I guess?

Here is information from the West End Transitway FAQ

10. How will bicycles be accommodated along the Transitway?
The West End Transitway project will construct bikeways along its route where major street reconstruction will occur as a part of the project. Bikeway configurations and locations proposed by the project are coordinated with adopted small area and corridor plans adopted along the corridor. The project’s ability to construct bikeways corridor-wide is constrained by factors such as the potential for adverse property impacts, limitations of existing infrastructure such as bridges, underpasses, and major culverts, and natural features such as streams and hilly terrain. Taking into consideration these and other constraints, the Build Alternative is currently proposed to provide approximately 2.3 miles of new bike facilities at the following locations along its route:

– S. Van Dorn Street (except on existing railroad bridge and just north of Edsall Road) between Eisenhower Avenue and Stevenson Avenue): 12-foot wide multi use path on the east side
– N. Van Dorn Street from Landmark Mall Driveway to S. Holmes Run Drive: 10-foot wide multi use path on the west side
– N. Van Dorn Street from N. Holmes Run Drive to Sanger Avenue: 10-foot wide multi use path on the west side
– Beauregard Street between Sanger Avenue and Rayburn Avenue: 10-foot wide multi use path on the east side

As you noted, the gap will still exist between Sanger/Richenbacher and Braddock on Van Dorn. There will also be a gap between Stevenson Road and Landmark Mall Drive.

[Author]

Posts