Washington Blvd repaving thru Westover

[sjclaeys]

@DismalScientist 187851 wrote:

Parking is diagonal here. Since back in parking is safer, do you really want cars backing into a space where the back of the space is a bike lane? :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the diagonal parking is not continuous and 3 trees would have to be murdered to make it continuous.

I think that diagonal parking is on private property, so unless it is being seized under eminent domain with due compensation to the property owner then not much is going to change there.

[sjclaeys]

@dasgeh 187897 wrote:

A buffer that’s a bit wider than the width of a car door would. That’s why they always put in buffers with PBLs. Otherwise every PBL beside parking would have issues.

Well, my experience is that just about every PBL does have that issue.

[scoot]

PBL buffers I have seen are not wide enough to cover the door zone. Plus many drivers park their vehicles encroaching on the buffers. At least one driver on Wilson Blvd last night had parked entirely over the buffer, leaving only the gutter outside his door zone.

Poorly parked vehicles tend to encroach on conventional door zone lanes also of course. But it is easier to go around those ones safely.

[josh]

So I was just at the open house, and what I learned:
* Medians and brick paver crosswalks will be gone (the impetus for the repaving)
* Pretty sure bike lanes will extend through these three blocks in both directions (connecting the ones both east and west of Westover)
* Main choice is between keeping parking on the north side (westbound) pull-in (27 spots), or convert it to back-in parking (rotating the slots by 90 degrees, and lose six spots to the angled tree peninsulas)
* Looks like the county is going to try to put an additional five parking spots by the post office (so a net loss of one spot potentially)
* The crosswalks will be made more visible (zebra stripes?), and if that’s not sufficient there’s a chance HAWK beacons could be installed

If I got anything wrong, I’m sure Erin can correct the record.

I heard back-in spots and adding a bike lane (or possibly the loss of parking spots) described as “draconian”, so there’s definitely some opposition. My personal thoughts are that if there’s any significant parking action going on, I’ll take the lane anyways. It’s like taking Clarendon Boulevard through Clarendon. You can either dodge rideshares dropping people off, people attempting to parallel park, people waiting to take right turns, or just take the lane and avoid all that and go at automobile speed.

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 187936 wrote:

PBL buffers I have seen are not wide enough to cover the door zone. Plus many drivers park their vehicles encroaching on the buffers. At least one driver on Wilson Blvd last night had parked entirely over the buffer, leaving only the gutter outside his door zone.

Poorly parked vehicles tend to encroach on conventional door zone lanes also of course. But it is easier to go around those ones safely.

on eads there are flex posts between the parking lane and the pbl. ditto on pbls in DC. not sure why wilson is different.

[zsionakides]

@josh 187977 wrote:

So I was just at the open house, and what I learned:
* Medians and brick paver crosswalks will be gone (the impetus for the repaving)
* Pretty sure bike lanes will extend through these three blocks in both directions (connecting the ones both east and west of Westover)
* Main choice is between keeping parking on the north side (westbound) pull-in (27 spots), or convert it to back-in parking (rotating the slots by 90 degrees, and lose six spots to the angled tree peninsulas)
* Looks like the county is going to try to put an additional five parking spots by the post office (so a net loss of one spot potentially)
* The crosswalks will be made more visible (zebra stripes?), and if that’s not sufficient there’s a chance HAWK beacons could be installed

If I got anything wrong, I’m sure Erin can correct the record.

I heard back-in spots and adding a bike lane (or possibly the loss of parking spots) described as “draconian”, so there’s definitely some opposition. My personal thoughts are that if there’s any significant parking action going on, I’ll take the lane anyways. It’s like taking Clarendon Boulevard through Clarendon. You can either dodge rideshares dropping people off, people attempting to parallel park, people waiting to take right turns, or just take the lane and avoid all that and go at automobile speed.

Would it be feasible to fit a cycle track on the south side of the road, which would leave all the parking on the north side. Those going west bound who didn’t want to cross over twice could just take the lane, but those less comfortable riding in the road would have a protected facility. This would remove the interactions between an unprotected bike lane and all the parking on the north side of the road.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187985 wrote:

Would it be feasible to fit a cycle track on the south side of the road, which would leave all the parking on the north side. Those going west bound who didn’t want to cross over twice could just take the lane, but those less comfortable riding in the road would have a protected facility. This would remove the interactions between an unprotected bike lane and all the parking on the north side of the road.

It would be a ~3 block cycletrack. Would you cross the road to use it?

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 187981 wrote:

on eads there are flex posts between the parking lane and the pbl. ditto on pbls in DC. not sure why wilson is different.

Wilson had flexposts. Arlington’s flexposts seem to migrate more than DCs. But even when the flexposts are there, they are in the middle of the buffer, so someone can park against a flexpost and their door can open into the bike lane.

[scoot]

Right. Most of the door hazard could be fixed by moving the flexposts closer to the parking spaces and further from the bike lane. In some places it is possible to fit a car between successive flexposts.

[Erin Potter]

Hey y’all — spotted a few folks at the Open House last night (*waves*), but for those of you that weren’t able to attend, there are more ways to connect with the project.

First off, Open House materials are now online. Check ’em out on the project page under “Open House Materials”.

In-Person – Washington Boulevard Farmer’s Market
Stop by and see community engagement staff (it me) on your trip to the Westover Farmer’s Market. We’ll have information about the project and opportunities for feedback.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Westover Library Plaza
1644 North McKinley Road
Arlington, Virginia 22205
10:00 am – 12:00 pm

Online – Feedback form
Can’t make the in-person events? Review materials and share your feedback online from February 28 – March 31.
Click here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BYHG72Z

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187996 wrote:

It would be a ~3 block cycletrack. Would you cross the road to use it?

I wouldnt do so on my own as I’d just ride in the traffic, but I most certainly would if riding with my children.

I dont think there is any way to make the west bound side safe without major changes to the diagonal parking. My idea is to put a cycletrack on the south side to give a fully protected facility and a sharrow on the north side. In the future the cycle track could be further extended east/west, providing a protected facility without disrupting parking.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 188019 wrote:

I wouldnt do so on my own as I’d just ride in the traffic, but I most certainly would if riding with my children.

I dont think there is any way to make the west bound side safe without major changes to the diagonal parking. My idea is to put a cycletrack on the south side to give a fully protected facility and a sharrow on the north side. In the future the cycle track could be further extended east/west, providing a protected facility without disrupting parking.

This area to the west https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8862769,-77.1434281,3a,75y,308.71h,59.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smG8ku08Bg6VB1UyvlRSK9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

has a buffered bike lane, no parking spaces, WB. EB there is a “door zone” bike lane, but apparently not many cars parked there (and I imagine rather low parking turnover). I two way cycle track using the same width as the existing bike lanes would be, I guess, less safe because of the dangers of head on bike collisions, and the problematic positioning at intersections (I mean unless you fit it out with bike boxes, bike only signal phases, the whole nine yards, which I suspect is unlikely) that is part of what you get with 2 way cycle tracks.

Seems like putting in flexposts (or concrete curb its?) to protect a one way bike lane from parking cars might be the better and more realistic solution.

[sjclaeys]

@lordofthemark 188021 wrote:

This area to the west https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8862769,-77.1434281,3a,75y,308.71h,59.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smG8ku08Bg6VB1UyvlRSK9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

has a buffered bike lane, no parking spaces, WB. EB there is a “door zone” bike lane, but apparently not many cars parked there (and I imagine rather low parking turnover). I two way cycle track using the same width as the existing bike lanes would be, I guess, less safe because of the dangers of head on bike collisions, and the problematic positioning at intersections (I mean unless you fit it out with bike boxes, bike only signal phases, the whole nine yards, which I suspect is unlikely) that is part of what you get with 2 way cycle tracks.

Seems like putting in flexposts (or concrete curb its?) to protect a one way bike lane from parking cars might be the better and more realistic solution.

Uh, just to clarify things, that is not at all the area under discussion.

[sjclaeys]

I’ve been using this area as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver for over 20 years. The diagonal parking on the north side actually works well because the cars back up into the buffer zone that is not in the road and leaving at an angle gives drivers a better view of on-coming bicycles and cars (though they are on the road and not the buffer zone). The option 3 of having the diagonal spaces face the other way and have cars back in I think could be incrementally safer. A PBL on the south side between parked cars and the sidewalk would be a hazard due to dooring. The greatest threat to safety in the area is vehicles, especially Metro buses, going through at unsafe speeds. Nothing in the options addresses that.

[accordioneur]

@sjclaeys 188024 wrote:

I’ve been using this area as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver for over 20 years. The diagonal parking on the north side actually works well because the cars back up into the buffer zone that is not in the road and leaving at an angle gives drivers a better view of on-coming bicycles and cars (though they are on the road and not the buffer zone). The option 3 of having the diagonal spaces face the other way and have cars back in I think could be incrementally safer. A PBL on the south side between parked cars and the sidewalk would be a hazard due to dooring. The greatest threat to safety in the area is vehicles, especially Metro buses, going through at unsafe speeds. Nothing in the options addresses that.

I think the back-in parking would be less safe. I think it does nothing to increase cyclist safety – so you’ll be hit by a car pulling into a spot rather than a car pulling out – and would be a nightmare of a bumper-car fest as cars stop on Washington Blvd. and try to back up into the spaces. I also see little benefit to a 1/2 mile (at best) cycle track that requires you to cross a busy street to use it. The proposed Option 2 looks reasonable.

[Author]

Posts