Sharing v. Segregation

[brendan]

@KLizotte 22087 wrote:

However, studies here and abroad have consistently shown that cycletracks, well-designed bike lanes, etc. help bring out the indicator species, namely women and older people. The more women you see biking, the more the overall population gets on a bike because of real and perceived safety. And the more bikes there are on the streets, real safety for cyclists goes up.

Yes x 10. Real safety for all cyclists, no matter where they ride.

@KLizotte 22087 wrote:

There is a reason we have sidewalks – we don’t expect people to walk in the street because of the danger; we even segregate the sidewalks by putting in curbs.

Sort of. I’m of the opinion that streets were meant for people and the invasion of and takeover by automobiles will be a temporary (if very long) phenomena and a failed social experiment.

That could be the hydrocodone talking, though.

@KLizotte 22087 wrote:

As a last note, I think sharrows confuse drivers since it seems to imply that cyclists should only be on roads with sharrows. I still can’t figure out what the “End of Sharrows” asphalt signage means on Madison Ave near the Washington Monument. It seems to imply that cyclists are supposed to get out of the road at that point.

Indeed. I think they are useful…but send an unclear and confusing message.

Brendan

[eminva]

I feel at a loss in this conversation because I don’t have any expertise in transportation infrastructure, as many who participate in this debate locally and nationally do. I’d be interested to know what the League of American Bicyclists favors? An organization like Alta Planning?

I am in favor of separated facilities (cycle tracks, bike lanes, etc.), not because I feel the need for them myself, but because I think they attract more people to cycling. I do use them where they are available. I think with time, experience and education we can work out the kinks (like motorists parking in bike lanes, poorly designed lanes, etc.).

There is another variable we are forgetting here. I think both DC and Arlington desperately want LAB Gold Status. If that means adding more bike lanes over the reticence of non-cycling residents, I don’t think they’d hesitate. So yeah, the time for advocates to pounce is now.

Liz

[chris_s]

I think if you build more separated facilities you’ll end up with both more people biking the separated facilities and also more people biking in the street, ultimately making things safer for everyone. Some of the folks that start biking because they feel safe on the separated facilities will stay at that level and only bike on the separated facilities and on MUTs, others will graduate training-wheels-style to on-street cycling after some time on the separated facilities.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 22091 wrote:

Putting some paint on the street and claiming that just anyone can ride a bike next to traffic going 50+ MPH is disingenuous.

I’m thinking roads like Idylwild and Cedar, not routes 50 and 29. Obviously sharrows on high speed highways are inappropriate.

[DaveK]

@eminva 22108 wrote:

There is another variable we are forgetting here. I think both DC and Arlington desperately want LAB Gold Status. If that means adding more bike lanes over the reticence of non-cycling residents, I don’t think they’d hesitate.

As much as I’d like to agree with you, this just isn’t so. Look at NYC’s example – the Prospect Park West bike lane required removing a travel lane to put in. NYC DOT did studies showing that not only did vehicle speeds decrease on the adjacent roadway, improving safety for all parties, but travel time through the corridor for vehicles remained unchanged before and after. And cyclist volume went up by a huge percentage. Win-win, right? Wrong. The city will be sued over the installation by nearby residents who have a whole host of objections. And that’s just one example.

There is no political willpower right now to install cycling facilities that face any sort of significant citizen objection. I would really love to be proven wrong on this, but I don’t think it’ll happen. That’s why cycling installations continue to be of the type that doesn’t require any inconvenience from anyone. A narrowed travel lane here, a couple of feet there, and congratulations, you have a bike lane. Our area is quickly running out of spots where this type of easy, nobody-gets-hurt choice is possible. Once these low-hanging fruits have been picked clean, the next step is real and significant infrastructure changes. Those changes may require losing on-street parking for a buffered bike lane, or maybe removing street trees to make room for a cycletrack, or perhaps losing a ~15-ft corridor of green space in a park to allow for a new multi-use trail connection. Is there willpower and desire from the public for this type of action and commitment, not just from the folks on this board and the few that show up to BAC meetings, but a real groundswell of activism? Will there be a substantial show of support to the local governments demanding action and changes, and not just the same people who show up to the council or board meetings reguarly? Great question. I haven’t seen it yet.

Again, I would love to be proven wrong on this, I really would. But if there isn’t even significant enough neighborhood and area support for a project including changes as minimal as the Columbia Pike Bike Boulevards to go forward with the elements that it needs to be successful, I don’t see anyone standing up and advocating the loss of on-street parking or the sacrifice of some intersection capacity to allow for separated cycling facilities. Real and lasting changes cannot just come from the government buildings, even if the various agencies are already on board. There has to be widespread, even if not majority, support that is willing to speak out and advocate for their position in order to move things along.

[DismalScientist]

While I agree that bicyclist are obviously more vulnerable that drivers, this does not necessarily mean that segregated facilities are safer than shared. In particular, the transitions between segregated and streets and the intersections between streets and segregated facilities can be quite problematic. Witness the Lee/Lynn situation, the crossing of the trails and the GW parkways, potential left and right hooks from on-street cyclotracks, left hooks involving cyclists on sidewalks. Many recent accidents involving cyclists have happened in these areas recently.

I think it is also a problem in comparing the safety of on-street bicycling with well-designed segregated facilities. Instead one should compare on-street cycling with the segregated facilities that we will likely get.

One argument against my claim that on-street cycling is likely safer that segregated facilities is one of sample selection. On street cyclists are likely more experienced than those that stick to segregated facilities. Thus one should try to distinguish whether any difference in safety is due to different infrastructure design or due different levels of experience.

Lastly, on segregated facilities encouraging more bicycling because of the perception of safety, I would suggest that learning to ride and gaining confidence is much better done on quiet neighborhood streets than on multiuse trails.

[KLizotte]

I agree with what DaveK said wholeheartedly.

To his point, I was terribly dismayed recently when I visited Ashburn for a cycling event. Much of Loudon County is being built from the ground up as I write; whole towns are practically being built over night. Unfortunately, they all feature really bad civil planning. They have very wide, low volume roads which encourages residents to treat them as highways despite the posted speed limits. There are few sidewalks, no new MUPs, the retail/office parks are islands unto themselves requiring people to drive to commute, etc. Compare that scenario to Reston’s residential areas which were designed with walking/biking in mind. Villages were designed around commercial centers, there are a ton of MUPs, lots of narrow streets, etc. When I was in Palm Coast, FL last month I rode all over town on an amazing trail network and almost never rode in the street. The major strip malls had bike trails running through them. It felt so safe that I wasn’t worried about not wearing a helmet (I hadn’t brought mine for the trip). There are working examples in the US though they may be far and few between.

Yes, going after the non-low hanging fruit in Arlington is going to be a painful, long proposition but there is no excuse for towns that are being built from scratch today. Loundon County does seem to be out of step with current trends that show young people are eschewing car ownership, older populations are moving back to the cities in order to be able to walk to what they need, an increasing proportion of people are participating in car and bike sharing programs, and telecommuting.

[PotomacCyclist]

Looks like they are fighting an uphill battle in Loudoun: http://www.bikeloudoun.org/content/about-us

I rarely head out that way but I hope they change their mindset and begin to look into their own 2003 bicycle and pedestrian master plan for ideas.

http://www.loudoun.gov/documents/43/725/747/BOS%20Approved%20Plan%2010-20.PDF

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 22114 wrote:

I’m thinking roads like Idylwild and Cedar, not routes 50 and 29. Obviously sharrows on high speed highways are inappropriate.

Well, when you are going from point A to point B you have to deal with the roads that are there. Given that the existing infrastructure favors high speed auto traffic, and that we’re unlikely to see the traffic slow down en masse, you’re basically writing off the people in large parts of the area and telling them that they just can’t use a bike to get from A to B because in some other part of the area you can ride on the street and don’t want anyone else to have a different solution.

Cars get grade-separated infrastructure to let them go long distances without conflicts. If I’m going a long way on a bike, I’d like the same privilege. Part of this may be downtown myopia–yeah, there might be better ways to get a mile or two in the city on a street, but if you’re going from, say, reston to leesburg, the W&OD beats the alternatives with a stick. It would be even better with more seperation, of course, but it starts to hint at what a bike highway infrastructure to go along with the car highway infrastructure might look like. The biggest problem is that just like car highways, it needs to vary based on the traffic volume, and the local trails don’t change once they’re inside the beltway.

[5555624]

[ @mstone 22093 wrote:

That’s not blunt, that’s selfish.

Okay, selfish. How do we satisfy the “many people who simply won’t bike without separate” facilities? How does these people get to a separate bike lane or trail? Let’s say I live at S Pershing Dr & S 3rd St and I am not willing to ride without separate facilities — do I walk three-quarters of a mile to the W&OD? Do I drive? Do I ride on the sidewalk (and doge pedestrians), even though it’s a longer route to the trail than the road? I think it is unreasonable to think that we are going to build separate facilities to everyone’s home.

[5555624]

@KLizotte 22089 wrote:

Put another way, do you want your 10 year old daughter taking the lane on Clarendon, by herself, on the way to school? Your 90 year old granddad who has arthritis and bad vision? Going downhill at rush hour? ‘

My “problem” — okay. perhaps one of many — is that I think of my bike as a vehicle and it’s primary purpose is getting me and my stuff from point A to point B. (That’s why I have no tolerance for running red lights and think bikes should be on the roads and not sidewalks, unless the sidewalk is a designated trail.) I also don’t have a problem with kids riding on the sidewalk.

For your first two examples, I’d say they should not be operating a vehicle on the road. Is a 10-year-old going to know all the traffic laws? (I’m not sure I’d even want her riding on the Custis or MVT by herself going to school.) Should someone 90-years-old with bad vision be operating a vehicle on the road? I’m not sure I’d want either one riding in a marked bike lane, since I have seen cars drive several blocks in bike lanes and I’ve even been overtaken by a scooter in a bike lane. Granddad with bad vision is probably going to get doored in a bike lane.

Even if you design segregated/separate facilities for those two examples, where do they start? Where to they start? Even if you put them on all the major thoroughfares, you’ve got to ride on the road at some point and drivers do stupid things and/or speed on every street.

[mstone]

@5555624 22129 wrote:

Okay, selfish. How do we satisfy the “many people who simply won’t bike without separate” facilities? How does these people get to a separate bike lane or trail? Let’s say I live at S Pershing Dr & S 3rd St and I am not willing to ride without separate facilities — do I walk three-quarters of a mile to the W&OD? Do I drive? Do I ride on the sidewalk (and doge pedestrians), even though it’s a longer route to the trail than the road? I think it is unreasonable to think that we are going to build separate facilities to everyone’s home.

Well, we’d do something reasonable and put in separate infrastructure where necessary, and promote surface routes where practical. It’s the “NOBODY NEEDS ANY SEPARATE INFRASTRUCTURE” crowd that sees this as an either-or.

[5555624]

@mstone 22132 wrote:

Well, we’d do something reasonable and put in separate infrastructure where necessary, and promote surface routes where practical. It’s the “NOBODY NEEDS ANY SEPARATE INFRASTRUCTURE” crowd that sees this as an either-or.

And the “I WON’T RIDE ON THE ROAD PERIOD” crowd also sees this an either-or, too. It’s a smaller group, since your group includes a lot of anti-cycling drivers, but they do exist. About seven or eight years ago, myself and some friends rode the Arlington Loop on a weekend. We had to meet at the parking lot over 66, next to W&L, because most of them had to drive there — even though they lived less than a mile away. The W Glebe Rd/Valley Dr/Martha Custis portion was all on the sidewalks for them, too.

Of course, most of this group may be recreational cyclists and since we already have well-developed trails, we can ignore them? (I know, I’m selfish.)

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 22132 wrote:

Well, we’d do something reasonable and put in separate infrastructure where necessary, and promote surface routes where practical. It’s the “NOBODY NEEDS ANY SEPARATE INFRASTRUCTURE” crowd that sees this as an either-or.

I think you are setting up a straw man. My point is that separate infrastructure as designed is often less safe than non-segregated. I also don’t see building substantial amounts of segregated infrastructure (except perhaps bike lanes) as sufficiently inexpensive to be likely. It is not as if there are many abandoned railroad rights-of-way out there.

[mstone]

@5555624 22133 wrote:

And the “I WON’T RIDE ON THE ROAD PERIOD” crowd also sees this an either-or, too

Maybe, but it’s mostly a straw man that hasn’t been proposed in this thread.

[Author]

Posts