Washington Blvd pushback

[hozn]

I’ll agree the Wash Blvd striping provides for a couple tight spots in traffic. Especially that turn onto EB Wash Blvd at Ohio St – yikes, that is a tight turn.

But I like the bike lanes, as incomplete as they are. I only occasionally ride on them; I am more often a driver on that road. So as a driver, the bike lanes make Washington Blvd feel less comfortable and I’d be less comfortable driving faster. I think we’re all agreeing that’s a good thing.

As for the value of the lanes themselves to cyclists, I’m less convinced that they’re all that critical given the proximity of the W&OD. There are obviously cases where people will want to ride on Washington Blvd if they’re commuting to/from somewhere right off that road or just trying to choose the absolute most direct path, but Westover shops are easily accessed by the W&OD & the Westover neighborhood cut-through trail that dumps you out on McKinley St. just north of 66 (at which point you ride north for 2-3 blocks and you’re at Westover.

But I think all roads should have bike lanes on them to remind drivers that cyclists are road users. If this results in the roads feeling uncomfortable to drivers, making them use extra caution, that’s great. They were always at least that uncomfortable for cyclists.

[Judd]

Despite our differences in opinion on the Washington Blvd Bike Lanes, I think we can all agree that it’s a pretty big tragedy that none of you have invited me to ride my bike over to Westover to have a beer with you.

[Judd]

So, I think one thing lacking from this discussion is the perspective of the person that doesn’t ride all the time and know how to get places and doesn’t think to use google cycling directions. Beginners tend to try to use routes that are similar to how they know how to get there (which is in a car). When I first moved here I was an occasional weekend rider. When I wanted to get to the W&OD, the only route I knew was riding down the Pike (cause I had seen the trail from my car driving down the Pike). After I discovered the bicycle boulevards along the Pike I started taking those, but got lost every time the first few times. Similarly, I didn’t know for quite some time that LBJ Memorial Grove existed and would take the 27 Trail all the way to Mt. Vernon with it’s multiple highway crossings.

As someone who is hardly ever in that area of Arlington having a bike lane on a road that I can use as a reference point is a nice thing. My hope is that for someone that lives near the bike lanes that doesn’t currently consider riding a bike to be a viable option may be encouraged to give it a try.

[lordofthemark]

@accordioneur 173615 wrote:

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”?

Obviously traffic calming involves some vehicles going more slowly. In Alexandria IIUC we have defined that as decreasing the number of vehicles going far in excess of the posted speed limits. That is why many sources use the word slowing in the context of traffic calming. In general the road designs are designed to be comfortable AT the speed limit. And since traffic signals are typically set for driving at the posted limit, that is why I make the distinction (as well as the impact of incident related congestion on average speeds). The GOAL is to calm traffic – to reduce the excess speeds, often wasted, which are particularly dangerous. The goal is not to reduce the average speed (assuming that is at the speed limit, or not far above it). Though the techniques to reduce the fastest speeders DO involve slowing THOSE drivers, of course.

Now, in Alexandria we HAVE reduced speed limits on a few arterials. That is traffic slowing. Where the speed limit remains the same, and physical changes are made to discourage driving far above the speed limit, I think it is misleading to call it traffic slowing. I have heard the distinction made, but can’t find a good quote for you right now.

[lordofthemark]

@accordioneur 173615 wrote:

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”).

What is the posted speed limit on that part of Washington Blvd? I thought it was 30MPH? Do the changes make it impassable at 30MPH? What speed do you want to drive at, on that street? I am pretty sure in Alexandria the traffic calming that has been implemented is designed to encourage travel at the speed limits, which I would call “safe” not “slow” whatever the ITE says.

[lordofthemark]

Here is something from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute

3. Vehicle Delay
Traffic calming reduces average motor vehicle speeds, and sometimes increases the
distances required to drive to destinations. This increases automobile users’ travel time.
On the other hand, traffic calming that reduces excess speeds and smoothes traffic flow
(such as calming an arterial, or replacing a conventional intersection with a roundabout92)
can increase total roadway capacity and reduce congestion delays, since roadway capacity
is maximized at 30-40 mph, and less on typical streets with stoplight intersections.93

To me if delays are reduced, its misleading to call it traffic slowing, even though it DOES reduce the speeds of those going the highest speeds over the speed limit.

Here is the VDOT definition
http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/faq-traffic-calming.asp

What is traffic calming?
Traffic calming slows speeding traffic on residential streets without restricting access to them.

IE it slows speeding traffic, not necessarily average speed. At any rate the latter is not the definition, or the goal.

[bobco85]

@lordofthemark 173619 wrote:

Obviously traffic calming involves some vehicles going more slowly. In Alexandria IIUC we have defined that as decreasing the number of vehicles going far in excess of the posted speed limits. That is why many sources use the word slowing in the context of traffic calming. In general the road designs are designed to be comfortable AT the speed limit. And since traffic signals are typically set for driving at the posted limit, that is why I make the distinction (as well as the impact of incident related congestion on average speeds). The GOAL is to calm traffic – to reduce the excess speeds, often wasted, which are particularly dangerous. The goal is not to reduce the average speed (assuming that is at the speed limit, or not far above it). Though the techniques to reduce the fastest speeders DO involve slowing THOSE drivers, of course.

Now, in Alexandria we HAVE reduced speed limits on a few arterials. That is traffic slowing. Where the speed limit remains the same, and physical changes are made to discourage driving far above the speed limit, I think it is misleading to call it traffic slowing. I have heard the distinction made, but can’t find a good quote for you right now.

My favorite example of this is when Alexandria reduced the speed limit on Quaker Lane between Seminary Rd and Duke St from 35 mph to 25 mph. IIRC the average speed before was around 45-47 (very dangerous), but after the reduction the average speed went to around 35. In the end, they got exactly what they wanted which was for people to obey the original speed limit!

[accordioneur]

@lordofthemark 173622 wrote:

… such as calming an arterial, …

I’ll stop now — who am I to argue against free-flowing arteries?

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 173582 wrote:

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.

I think you’ve misrepresented the process, particularly the impact of the bike lobby (bold added above). Having a bike lane here is called for in the current bike element and in the neighborhood’s own planning docs (in fact, the neighborhood’s own planning process added this bike lane to the bike element). When staff goes to figure out what changes to make when there’s an opportunity like restriping, they start at those planning documents. In other words, a bike lane was planned here not because of the bike lobby, but because of neighborhood planning efforts. In the end, the church ended up with more parking spaces, at the expense of the people who use public buses and the safety of people on bikes. As a Christian, I was disappointed that the church was not more sympathetic to the needs and safety of the vulnerable. As someone who was involved in the process, I was disappointed in the lack of effort put in to finding other solutions — e.g. creating new parking on other streets, encouraging the able bodied to leave close in spots for the “geezers”, etc.

@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.

Which reminds me of the other, very important, reason to build a bike facility parallel to a multi-use trail: bike lanes may entice people biking, particularly those who bike fast, to use the street instead of the trail. This leaves more space on the trail for other users (like people walking, kids riding their bikes, etc). In Arlington, our trails are overcrowded and many people feel intimidated by people biking, especially those who are fast. Getting fast cyclists off the trails is a cheap way to improve our trails.

[Birru]

@Judd 173617 wrote:

Despite our differences in opinion on the Washington Blvd Bike Lanes, I think we can all agree that it’s a pretty big tragedy that none of you have invited me to ride my bike over to Westover to have a beer with you.

I too think the biggest issue is the lack of publicized gatherings at Westover. Grab a slice at the Italian Store, then head to the Beer Garden!

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 173626 wrote:

I think you’ve misrepresented the process, particularly the impact of the bike lobby (bold added above). Having a bike lane here is called for in the current bike element and in the neighborhood’s own planning docs (in fact, the neighborhood’s own planning process added this bike lane to the bike element). When staff goes to figure out what changes to make when there’s an opportunity like restriping, they start at those planning documents. In other words, a bike lane was planned here not because of the bike lobby, but because of neighborhood planning efforts. In the end, the church ended up with more parking spaces, at the expense of the people who use public buses and the safety of people on bikes. As a Christian, I was disappointed that the church was not more sympathetic to the needs and safety of the vulnerable. As someone who was involved in the process, I was disappointed in the lack of effort put in to finding other solutions — e.g. creating new parking on other streets, encouraging the able bodied to leave close in spots for the “geezers”, etc.

You are simply wrong. The church ended up with exactly the same number of spots as before this whole thing started. The basic problem was that when designing the initial plan, no one made both the observation that putting in the bike lanes and bus stop would effectively cut the on-street parking by one half and the conclusion that perhaps it would be a good idea to directly inform the church that this would be the effect of the initial plan and give it some input early in the process. Sure, it was “public knowledge” that Washington Blvd would be restriped, but it was unclear what this really meant.

The church ended up with more parking spaces only relative to the initial plan not relative to before, yet this disinformation remains. Removal of the diagonal spaces to make room for a bus stop is nonsensical — the diagonal spaces are only used on Sunday and Metro data said that the bus stop was only used by 1 person per day. The supposed lack of effort in finding other solutions is a strawman–you can’t create more parking on other streets because the other streets already have no parking restrictions and the neighbors are already complaining. Able-bodied members are already encouraged to park farther away to make room in front of the church for the elderly.

If you remember that meeting a Reed School, you will note that people from the neighborhood were almost unanimously opposed to the initial plan with bike lanes on both sides of the street. The people who supported the full bike lanes were bicyclists from other parts of Arlington, most of whom rarely ride on Washington Blvd. As far as I can tell, the person that rode most frequently on Washington Blvd at the meeting was me. My impression of the meeting seemed to be that bicycle advocates were forcing something on the neighborhood that the neighborhood did not want.

The revised plan called for eastbound bicycle traffic to use Quantico and 18th Street. Chris asked whether anyone had done a study of these streets and the answer was no. Chris then asked whether anyone had ridden these streets to see if they were sufficiently safe. Of course, I was the only one who raised my hand and if you had actually wanted me to answer I would have said they were perfectly fine. Also there was the question about whether the intersection of 18th and Ohio was safe. For an inexperienced rider, that intersection is safer than riding in (or out of) a bike lane on Washington Blvd. If you are worried about the vulnerable, I would suggest concentrating on a safe network of bike routes on neighborhood streets rather than putting bike lanes on arterial roads.

[Steve O]

@Judd 173617 wrote:

Despite our differences in opinion on the Washington Blvd Bike Lanes, I think we can all agree that it’s a pretty big tragedy that none of you has invited me to ride my bike over to Westover to have a beer with you.

Hey, Judd. Wanna get a beer sometime?

[bobco85]

@Judd 173617 wrote:

Despite our differences in opinion on the Washington Blvd Bike Lanes, I think we can all agree that it’s a pretty big tragedy that none of you have invited me to ride my bike over to Westover to have a beer with you.

My bad, I thought you said “ride my bike over West to have a beer with you.” I mean, I’m already there :p

[Judd]

@Steve O 173656 wrote:

Hey, Judd. Wanna get a beer sometime?

My God! FINALLY! And yes. We should drink beer in Westover.

[Sunyata]

@Judd 173663 wrote:

My God! FINALLY! And yes. We should drink beer in Westover.

Stay tuned… I think my goal of this Freezing Saddles is to go to a happy hour at least once a week. This week is Clare & Don’s… Next week, though… Westover?!

[Author]

Posts