Washington Blvd repaving thru Westover

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 188290 wrote:

Oh, so you are arguing for buffered bike lanes now?

Not sure if this is for Dasgeh or for me. I accept that a pair of parking protected bike lanes on Seminary is not possible – there is no room for two general travel lanes, a center turn lane, two bike lanes AND even one parking lane. Whether flexposts (which I do consider to have some value, but that is another discussion) are possible or not, I am not sure. In some places (like Van Dorn) the City has put in flex posts at easier spots, making for sort of a hybrid between a buffered lane and a flex post protected one.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 188292 wrote:

Not sure if this is for Dasgeh or for me.

I’m not advocating for anything short of protected, so no idea what Dismal is referring to. Also, Washington is way flatter than 16th, so ?

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 188286 wrote:

PBLs without parking should be fine on roads with many driveways.

What exactly are PBLs without parking if not just buffered lanes? Are flexiposts sufficient to provide protection but not painted buffers?

[zsionakides]

@DismalScientist 188284 wrote:

By the criteria you state, you are basically saying that all arterials in Arlington and in every metropolitan area in the country should be equipped with PBLs. Please tell me exactly where any PBL exists on a street lined with single family houses.

Virginia Ln where the W&OD runs next to it crossing several driveways. Macarthur Blvd in Maryland.

[DismalScientist]

The WOD next to Virginia Lane is a bike path (and I take the road since fast biking on basically sidewalks is dangerous). Similarly, what is along side MacArthur is basically a bike path. There are very few driveways that cross it. Fast riders tend to take the street and generally piss off drivers to no end. None of these are PBLs.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 188294 wrote:

What exactly are PBLs without parking if not just buffered lanes? Are flexiposts sufficient to provide protection but not painted buffers?

Well for one flexposts deter parking or stopping in the bike lane which can be a problem. The noise hitting them makes can awaken a sleeping or distracted driver, or alert law enforcement.

There are also other protections like parkits that can be used but I can’t think of any examples in NoVa.

[zsionakides]

@DismalScientist 188299 wrote:

The WOD next to Virginia Lane is a bike path (and I take the road since fast biking on basically sidewalks is dangerous). Similarly, what is along side MacArthur is basically a bike path. There are very few driveways that cross it. Fast riders tend to take the street and generally piss off drivers to no end. None of these are PBLs.

Bike paths or shared used paths are typically defined by having an exclusive ROW. Virginia Ln and Macarthur’s cycletracks do not have exclusive ROW, however, their design makes them feel similar in comfort to an SUP.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 188289 wrote:

That it’s difficult to remove onstreet parking from an arterial suggest to me that the area is not as low density as much of the USA is. (I would also note that newer suburbs are much more likely to have arterials with more but narrower lanes, rather than one wide lane in each direction – see Ashburn for example)

The part of Seminary under study is east of I395, the City is likely to propose a road diet from 4 to 3 lanes – to discourage speeding – the limit is 25MPH but is widely disregarded – and to ease pedestrians crossing the streets – to reduce lane changing that creates crashes – to provide a center left turn lane that would expedite traffic and reduce rear end collisions – to ease people getting out of their driveways. The traffic volumes are significantly less east of Jordan than from I395 to Jordan, as much traffic from I 395 turns SB onto Jordan – it is possible that different treatments will be proposed east and west of Jordan, but I would not want to prejudice what T&ES may propose. IF a 4 to 3 road diet is done, it is very likely (and keeping with the City bike-ped master plan) that the extra space would go to bike lanes. There is no on-street parking in that area, so they would not be parking protected PBLs.

I will try not to speak of other jurisdictions, but in Alexandria at least, I strongly hold that even a mostly detached SFH area needs to have complete streets – both for the safety and comfort of residents who want to walk and bike, for the safety of residents who prefer to drive within the 25MPH speed limit, and to make it possible for people from nearby denser areas to walk and ride through it and to use transit within it. if the central “hole” of Alexandria is excluded from complete streets and traffic calming, we will fail to achieve our vision as a City. How that plays out in other jurisdictions will depend on details of geography.

On Seminary is the city looking at extending or putting a cycletrack on the north side to connect the bridge over 395. I don’t remember where the first signalized crossing is, but I believe it’s a few blocks east of 395.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 188304 wrote:

On Seminary is the city looking at extending or putting a cycletrack on the north side to connect the bridge over 395. I don’t remember where the first signalized crossing is, but I believe it’s a few blocks east of 395.

The City has not yet revealed its proposed options (its likely more than one will be available for the public to comment on). Certainly they are aware of the benefits of connectivity to the bridge.

[DismalScientist]

@zsionakides 188303 wrote:

Bike paths or shared used paths are typically defined by having an exclusive ROW. Virginia Ln and Macarthur’s cycletracks do not have exclusive ROW, however, their design makes them feel similar in comfort to an SUP.

OK then. Washington Blvd has (recently completed on the south side) sidewalks in its ROW. Why don’t we just call them cycletracks and we will be done?:rolleyes:

[sjclaeys]

Why invest in infrastructure to avoid hills when we will all be eventually driving e-bikes and can climb hills with no effort?

[huskerdont]

@sjclaeys 188334 wrote:

Why invest in infrastructure to avoid hills when we will all be eventually driving e-bikes and can climb hills with no effort?

Stop that.

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 188334 wrote:

Why invest in infrastructure to avoid hills when we will all be eventually driving e-bikes and can climb hills with no effort?

Because it’s not no effort. Even with an ebike, with kids on the bike, I prefer the reduced hills of Washington to 16th (and Lee to Custis).

More importantly, those arterials are more direct. For example, to direct someone to get from EFC to the Hospital (for example), it’s easier to follow:
(1) north on Sycamore, right on Washington, left on Mason;
than:
(2) follow that little path south of the Cabi station, turn left on the trail, the trail continues kinda-left through the parking lot, then follow the trail until the exit for Harrison (is it marked, as Harrison)? then head north on Harrison, and be careful crossing Washington because there’s no light, then turn right on 16th and at Mason, get on the sidewalk to get into the Hospital complex

Another example: to get from W-L to Tuckahoe, it’s easier to follow:
(1) take Washington Blvd west, turn right on Sycamore, turn left on 26th
than
(2) take 15th west, turn right on Glebe for a short block (or take the sidewalk, because it’s Glebe), turn left on 16th

@DismalScientist 188308 wrote:

OK then. Washington Blvd has (recently completed on the south side) sidewalks in its ROW. Why don’t we just call them cycletracks and we will be done?:rolleyes:

Where would the pedestrians go?

[mstone]

dasgeh;188351 wrote:

where would the pedestrians go?

to hell!

[DismalScientist]

I wasn’t going to bring this up, but if you look at the segment explore feature on Strava you will see that the grades on 16th Street are actually less than that those on Washington Blvd. As a frequent rider on both, I can confirm that, in fact 16th Street is flatter. (But, of course, one would expect 16th Street to be flatter as it is an older transportation corridor.)

As to how to get to the Hospital from Westover, you do realize that 16th Street literally goes directly from Westover to the Hospital? It makes absolutely no sense to take Washington to George Mason. From EFC to Westover, I would take the WOD to the pedestrian bridge to the Custis Spurt and up McKinley. This way I avoid the hill on Wash east of Sycamore and the associated merge area caused by traffic engineers thinking that is is smart having two lanes going straight east at the light at Sycamore. (Just take a gander at their plans for the future of EFC, where they are going to eliminate the right turn lane at Sycamore when it appears that half the traffic turns right and the other half goes straight.)

W-L to Tuckahoe? W-L is basically on top of the Custis trail, which basically intersects with Sycamore just south of East Falls Church metro, one block south of Washington Blvd. So the route is Custis (to WOD) to trail to access Metro. North on Sycamore and left on 26th. Another advantage of using this over Washington Blvd is that, east of Glebe, Washington Blvd is two narrow lanes each way with absolutely no accommodations for cyclists. West of Glebe to Harrison, Wash Blvd is one lane each way with wider lanes, but no bike lane paint.

@dasgeh 188351 wrote:

Where would the pedestrians go?

Where do the pedestrians going on the “PBLs” cited above. After all, they are actually MUPs.

[Author]

Posts