Washington Blvd pushback

[dasgeh]

@huskerdont 173558 wrote:

Despite being a bit shoehorned in, I think these are quite helpful except for the disappearance just when you most feel the need for the bike lane going up hill eastbound after Ohio.

Unless something changed, the EB bike lane disappears at Quintana. You may not feel it until Ohio because those parking spaces are usually empty. Of course, the fact that those parking spaces are usually empty is a reason to have put in the bike lane (grr)

@huskerdont 173558 wrote:

Those who say that the Custis or W&OD is right over there so go use that, I think, are missing the point. We want infrastructure (or safe roads to ride on) most everywhere so that people don’t have to ride three miles out of their way for a short trip. I personally welcome riding three miles out of the way to go get beer at Westover Market, but if you want people to cycle, that’s not how you do it.

Yes, and plus there are other reasons that even this stretch of bike lanes is useful:
(1) connects to Sycamore, which connects to Tuckahoe and Bishop O’Connell
(2) Washington Blvd is less hilly than alternatives (ride a cargo bike laden with kids for a while, and you’ll appreciate this)
(3) provides a more direct (i.e. simply to follow) to destinations — e.g. I would have taken them to the Synagogue in McLean, but they weren’t built yet. Instead I drove, because the alt route was longer and harder to follow.

@accordioneur 173568 wrote:

First, I would say there’s the ill will engendered with the community at large, which makes subsequent, more valuable cycling infrastructure projects that much harder to get approved,

The majority of people who write to the County last Spring supported the continuous bike lanes. There will always be squeaky wheels, but ArlCo needs to listen to the majority, and implement good policy.
@accordioneur 173568 wrote:

Second, given that county resources are limited, money spent on this project is money not spent on more useful bike lanes somewhere else,

Installing the bike lanes was done as part of repaving, so it was literally free.
@accordioneur 173568 wrote:

Third, while it’s easy for us to dismiss residents’ complaints as nothing but reflexive bike hate, it’s possible that the residents really did suffer harm from the bike lanes. I have several hobbies which involve transporting heavy gear and I know I would be harmed if I lost the possibility of parking in front of my house to load and unload, and

As built, only 2 parking spaces were removed to build the bike lane, and even those would have been removed so long as the long left turn lane at Ohio was built. Moreover, the vast majority of lots on this stretch have driveways (I believe the only one that doesn’t is adjacent to the lost parking spaces).
@accordioneur 173568 wrote:

Fourth, it is my belief that if we want drivers to drive more responsibly, the answer is education and enforcement, not slowing them down by making roads impassable.

Arlington does not invest in enforcement — we have one of the smallest police forces (per population) in the region (if not the smallest). ACPD simply does not have the resources to do widescale traffic enforcement. Scaling up to change that would be expensive, and certainly isn’t in the cards in the near future. ACPD admits that they don’t ticket speeding for anything less than 10 mph over.

But more importantly, there’s no evidence that enforcement works on issues like this. There is evidence that redesign does.
@accordioneur 173568 wrote:

At one end, yes. But since the lanes quickly peter out, they don’t connect Westover to anywhere. One could already reach Westover by taking the W&OD to the bike lanes on Ohio St. And to huskerdont’s point the W&OD is 1/4 mile away at most, not three miles.

The route from EFC Metro to Westover via the trail is something like 150% longer, with twice as much climbing, and three times as many turns than taking Washington (IIRC, I looked all this up in the Spring). As stated above, there are many more reasons to use the bike lanes. Oh, and there are bike lanes east of the Westover shopping center, as well as the neighborhood connections of Patrick Henry and 16th Street N, which one can use to get in North Arlington (i.e. the opposite direction from the trails).

@accordioneur 173413 wrote:

[…]They’re narrow, […]

When I rode them, they were buffered for most of the stretch.

[accordioneur]

@dasgeh 173580 wrote:

Installing the bike lanes was done as part of repaving, so it was literally free.

I beg to differ. The design and engineering work was not free, nor was the process of gathering community feedback.

@dasgeh 173580 wrote:

(3) provides a more direct (i.e. simply to follow) to destinations — e.g. I would have taken them to the Synagogue in McLean, but they weren’t built yet. Instead I drove, because the alt route was longer and harder to follow.

I find that biking on Westmoreland St., which cannot be entirely avoided when going to Rodef, requires great faith that some sort of greater power is protecting you

[DismalScientist]

@huskerdont 173574 wrote:

They connect EFC Metro to Westover, and they connect Sycamore to Westover, and they connect the W&OD to Westover. That’s not nothing.

As someone who lives in Westover, I would have to say no. If you are on the south side of Washington, the easiest way to get to EFC is taking the WOD from either the Patrick Henry, Ohio St., or Potomac Street pedestrian bridge. If you are north of Washington Blvd, the best way is probably 22nd St, one block to the north. These are the same connections between Westover and Sycamore. No, the lanes do not connect the WOD and Westover.

The eastbound lane does not end at Ohio, but rather does not exist between Quantico and 18th Street, with the suggestion that you use those streets around the non-existent segment.

As far as antagonism from the neighbors, it was largely due to the neighbors being largely uninformed of the plan until after the original plan was released. The plan was advertised as a “restriping plan for Washington Blvd,” pretty boring stuff. Of course, the bike lobby lives for stuff like this and pays attention. As a member of the church, I know that they did not realize the effects of the plan until a few weeks before the contentious meeting at Reed School. A quick letter writing campaign caused the staff to quickly amend the plans to what was implemented. That amended plan was presented as a fait accompli at the Reed School meeting.

In my opinion, the opposition to the original plan was entirely due to the loss of parking for the church. The church does not have a parking lot and relies exclusively for on-street parking. The original plan called for the removal of all parking on the opposite side of the street and a reduction by 1/2 of the diagonal parking directly in front of the church to allow a bus stop with extremely limited use. The church already receives complaints by neighbors on side road due to the draw of parked cars on Sunday mornings. This plan would have generated more parking on the side streets and longer walks for the scads of geezers that attend the church.
I find that calling the opposition to the plan “anti-bike” to be extremely disingenuous.

From a driver’s perspective, I don’t think the addition of the bike lane does much. Before, there was a wide lane with parking sometimes on both sides. Now, the wide lane has been replaced by a narrow lane and a painted bike lane. As this is just paint, it doesn’t necessarily change the perspective as one drives down the street. I expect that there has been very little speed reduction resulting from the addition of bike lanes.

[Judd]

@accordioneur 173581 wrote:

I beg to differ. The design and engineering work was not free, nor was the process of gathering community feedback.

This stuff would have happened whether bike lanes were included or not though. I find the amount of public discussion of stuff interesting, since it doesn’t really happen in the places where I grew up.

[huskerdont]

“No, the lanes do not connect the WOD and Westover.”

The lanes connect to the W&OD via Sycamore. (I had typed that originally and somehow deleted it, I think through a Ctrl-Z, but I won’t go back and fix it since you’ve responded to it). I have used this route many times. I find it quite an improvement now coming from the west along the W&OD, taking 19th by the metro, turning left onto Sycamore, then taking the right on Washington into Westover. I would not go back to using the W&OD and crossing I-66 via the pedestrian bridge then winding around the neighborhoods except for maybe variety. And Washington westbound is now so easy, there’s no reason I’d take 22nd either, except for variety.

[lordofthemark]

@Judd 173587 wrote:

This stuff would have happened whether bike lanes were included or not though. I find the amount of public discussion of stuff interesting, since it doesn’t really happen in the places where I grew up.

Yes, assuming there is going to be any change of any kind. Again, the issue is framing this as a full Complete Streets project, with bike lanes being just one aspect, as opposed to the perception (oddly shared both by those who are bike haters, and many cyclists) that in cases like this the bike lanes ARE the project.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 173582 wrote:

As this is just paint, it doesn’t necessarily change the perspective as one drives down the street. I expect that there has been very little speed reduction resulting from the addition of bike lanes.

I don’t know if Arlington is doing a before and after study as T&ES does in Alexandria. I know on King south of Janney’s there was a reduction in collisions even though the lanes just paint. I have even been told by T&ES that “advisory bike lanes” such as we have on Potomac Greens Drive, where the paint is not even a solid lane, just a dashed line, calm traffic. Apparently some drivers just instinctively take white painted lines (esp with bike symbols) seriously

[DismalScientist]

@huskerdont 173590 wrote:

“No, the lanes do not connect the WOD and Westover.”

The lanes connect to the W&OD via Sycamore. (I had typed that originally and somehow deleted it, I think through a Ctrl-Z, but I won’t go back and fix it since you’ve responded to it). I have used this route many times. I find it quite an improvement now coming from the west along the W&OD, taking 19th by the metro, turning left onto Sycamore, then taking the right on Washington into Westover. I would not go back to using the W&OD and crossing I-66 via the pedestrian bridge then winding around the neighborhoods except for maybe variety. And Washington westbound is now so easy, there’s no reason I’d take 22nd either, except for variety.

Fair enough… I would call that a connection between EFC and Westover. Do you find easier with the partial bike lane?
I would imagine it is better in the first block of Wash. east of Sycamore, but they should fix that merge issue by only allowing one lane to cross Sycamore on Wash. Blvd eastbound. The way the lanes are currently set up west of Sycamore encourages passing on the right.

[huskerdont]

@DismalScientist 173594 wrote:

Fair enough… I would call that a connection between EFC and Westover. Do you find easier with the partial bike lane?
I would imagine it is better in the first block of Wash. east of Sycamore, but they should fix that merge issue by only allowing one lane to cross Sycamore on Wash. Blvd eastbound. The way the lanes are currently set up west of Sycamore encourages passing on the right.

I do find it easier, with the exception of the uphill after Ohio. Probably wouldn’t bother some, but for me, there’s just something about toiling up hill with cars queuing behind me or passing without knowing if the other way is clear that stresses me a bit. As pointed out, the lane ends prior to there, but it doesn’t seem as bad before that hill. It would have been better if the lane were continuous, but I prefer an improvement to nothing.

And Arlington should definitely make the right lane west of Sycamore right-turn only to avoid the racing after Sycamore. They did that near me on George Mason NB at Lee, and the problem is gone.

[DismalScientist]

@huskerdont 173595 wrote:

I do find it easier, with the exception of the uphill after Ohio. Probably wouldn’t bother some, but for me, there’s just something about toiling up hill with cars queuing behind me or passing without knowing if the other way is clear that stresses me a bit. As pointed out, the lane ends prior to there, but it doesn’t seem as bad before that hill. It would have been better if the lane were continuous, but I prefer an improvement to nothing.

If the problem is that you get stuck at a red light at Ohio and that leads to cars backing up behind you, you may want to make a right on red at Ohio and turn left onto 18th, which rejoins Washington where the bike lane restarts.
Normally, I find that few cars back up behind me on the stretch of Wash past Ohio, but that may be that I tend to use that stretch on Sunday mornings.

On the merge east of Sycamore, west of Sycamore there are two through lanes and one right turn only lane. They would probably have to put up a lot of flexi-posts to eliminate the right through lane.

[Steve O]

@lordofthemark 173592 wrote:

Yes, assuming there is going to be any change of any kind. Again, the issue is framing this as a full Complete Streets project, with bike lanes being just one aspect, as opposed to the perception (oddly shared both by those who are bike haters, and many cyclists) that in cases like this the bike lanes ARE the project.

There are lots of examples of creating bike lanes that have actually had a greater impact on other users. A couple local examples come to mind:

Patrick Henry Dr. – This used to be one huge, wide lane in each direction, and on numerous occasions I would watch impatient drivers go around others on the right because there was room. I have never seen this happen since the lanes were striped, a safety win for everyone even though I rarely see cyclists south of I-66 using the lanes.

Wilson Blvd. in the vicinity of Four-Mile Run – opponents pointed out that the Custis and/or WOD are nearby alternatives. However, anyone who ever walked along this stretch will tell you that it is WAAAAYYY better to walk along here now than before, when cars were literally 2 feet away and the sidewalk is narrow. True not many cyclists use these lanes, but they are hugely valuable to pedestrians.

I am sure others can cite scores more examples of these kinds of effects. IMO the Washington Blvd. lanes are serving several functions, so even if they are not highly used by cyclists yet, they still represent a safety improvement for other road users, too.

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 173598 wrote:

There are lots of examples of creating bike lanes that have actually had a greater impact on other users. A couple local examples come to mind:

Patrick Henry Dr. – This used to be one huge, wide lane in each direction, and on numerous occasions I would watch impatient drivers go around others on the right because there was room. I have never seen this happen since the lanes were striped, a safety win for everyone even though I rarely see cyclists south of I-66 using the lanes.

I am guessing that will change after FFX completes the transformation of Seven Corners

http://www.fcrevit.org/baileys/

[accordioneur]

@Steve O 173598 wrote:

Wilson Blvd. in the vicinity of Four-Mile Run – opponents pointed out that the Custis and/or WOD are nearby alternatives. However, anyone who ever walked along this stretch will tell you that it is WAAAAYYY better to walk along here now than before, when cars were literally 2 feet away and the sidewalk is narrow. True not many cyclists use these lanes, but they are hugely valuable to pedestrians.

If, as you claim, the main goal of all these under-utilized bike lanes has nothing to do with cyclists (rather, they provide benefits that are “hugely valuable to pedestrians”), why use bike lanes as the mechanism of choice? Why not use something more focused on the desired effect of slowing down cars – bulbouts, speed cushions, or such?

Personally, I think they should unpave Wilson and Washington Boulevards and make them into gravel roads. That would achieve the vehicular slowdown you desire, plus it would give me a cool gravel commute to work.

[lordofthemark]

@accordioneur 173605 wrote:

If, as you claim, the main goal of all these under-utilized bike lanes has nothing to do with cyclists (rather, they provide benefits that are “hugely valuable to pedestrians”), why use bike lanes as the mechanism of choice? Why not use something more focused on the desired effect of slowing down cars – bulbouts, speed cushions, or such?

Personally, I think they should unpave Wilson and Washington Boulevards and make them into gravel roads. That would achieve the vehicular slowdown you desire, plus it would give me a cool gravel commute to work.

They provide benefits to users of all modes including people on bikes and drivers (I said particularly to pedestrians, BTW) Bike lanes are not always the mechanism of choice. But bulbouts tend to be more expensive (and note, with regard to cyclists, if you use them to narrow a lane, you have now taken away a route from the “I will ride in the travel lane but only to the right in a wide lane crowd” – though I still think the main reason they are not done is expense) As for speed cushions, they are also more expensive, and tend to be disfavored by traffic engineers (I think esp on routes where ambulances run, because the bump is a problem at speed) I am not sure if either of these were proposed for Washington Blvd. I am also not clear on how bulbouts that achieved equivalent traffic calming would make the street more desirable to drivers.

Note again, I do not desire a vehicle slowdown, but traffic calming. I assume the comfortable speed of vehicle travel on gravel is below 25MPH, the lowest speed limit in Arlington? (no, I don’t think you were serious, but won’t pass up the chance to distinguish between “traffic slowing/driver pubishment” and traffic calming)

[accordioneur]

@lordofthemark 173608 wrote:

won’t pass up the chance to distinguish between “traffic slowing/driver pubishment” and traffic calming

OK, based on your writing I figured that maybe I don’t understand the full definition of “traffic calming”. So I went to a FHWA document which quotes a European definition of traffic calming as “… a term that has emerged in Europe to describe a full range of methods to slow cars …” But Europeans are foreigners, so we shouldn’t trust them. I continued my research and found a DOT site that says “Traffic calming consists of physical design and other measures put in place on existing roads to reduce vehicle speeds …” Well, that’s a Federal government publication, which means it could have been written by mischievous deep staters. So, I went to the Safe Routes to Schools web site page on traffic calming, and found that it focuses almost completely on vehicular speed. But non-profits are almost as bad as the government, so I went to an organization that I, as a licensed Professional Engineer, could trust, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Lo and behold, the first bullet on their list of Traffic Calming Objectives is, “achieving slow speeds for motor vehicles” (n.b. the choice of words, “slow”, not “slower” or “safe”).

So, tell me again how “traffic calming” is distinct from “traffic slowing”?

[Author]

Posts