[dasgeh]

@Overtone 192003 wrote:

I need to get home from Rosslyn to Alexandria (Del Ray neighborhood) this afternoon. Anyone know if the MVT is passable Rosslyn to DCA? Anyone know about 4MRT from MVT to Route 1? I think I might get off the MVT at Crystal City since the water will likely be high at the Potomac end of 4MR for as long as it takes Arlington County to drain

If you’re looking for a probably-not-too-flooded/affected-by-flood-debris route, I’d try this one. (110 Trail to 27 Trail, around the Pentagon to Fern to Eads).

[dasgeh]

@scoot 191959 wrote:

There’s only a few blocks of city streets on that route, so there’s not much room for improvement by that criterion. One could certainly walk against traffic along M for two blocks (from RCP & Pennsylvania to 25th & M) if Penn to 25th is a deal-breaker.

You’re allowed to ride on the sidewalk west of 23rd St NW – no need to walk.

[dasgeh]

If you don’t mind the TR Bridge, you can stay on the MVT and use that, then take 24th North past GW. It’s not bad, except for the pinch close to Pennsylvania. Even then, it’s ok, and sidewalk riding is legal.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 191939 wrote:

On Military between Marcey and Old Glebe, I am constantly going back and forth between the bike lane and the general travel lane. On a weekend when recreational bike traffic increases, I frequently both pass and get passed by same-direction bicycles. If the bike lanes were cordoned off by parked cars and/or bollards, all this maneuvering would be either unnecessarily dangerous or impossible.

To accommodate a variety of riders, you need a design for bike lanes that allows for a quick lane change between the general lane and bicycle lane almost anywhere along the lane.

This is not that section of Military, FYI. It’s by the Cherrydale Library.

But to your point, you don’t need to switch between the bike lanes and general travel lanes. You want to pass slower bike traffic. Your only option now is the switching, but with a PBL, the options are either to build the PBL wide enough to accommodate passing, or for faster riders to take the travel lane. Yes, you may end up behind a slower rider unexpectedly, and have to wait until an intersection to pass but… so? I hope we get to the day where congestion in bike lanes/trails is a reason people choose not to bike, but we’re so far from that day, I’ll risk it.

[dasgeh]

@huskerdont 191935 wrote:

Maybe it’s just me being selfish and my type of riding, but I actually wouldn’t want PBLs on Military. With the downhills you can go as fast as the cars, and I think it’s safer to have more space available to maneuver than just the narrow allotted PBL space.

And no, I don’t want to slow down.

As mentioned, people like you can take the lane.

The PBLs would be for people like my kids, who would bike to Potomac Overlook, the Cherrydale Library, Taylor ES (and events held there), the churches on Military/Lorcom (and events held in them), etc. in PBLs. I’ve said it a million times, but families like mine, who have navigated Arlington just fine when our kids were little and could be on our bikes, are forced into cars when the kids get bigger if there’s no safe, direct infrastructure for the kids to ride on. And they want to ride — they enjoy it, and they take this whole “carbon footprint” thing seriously.

[dasgeh]

On Military:

• Nacto calls for PBLs
• The situation is complicated by residential driveways.
• Also complicating the situation is Arlington County is still working out the kinks of having PBLs beside SFHs — how to do trash, etc. I think they’ll get there, but this maybe isn’t the project to go to the mat for when there’s this issue [see Quincy].
• There’s a plan to do a green striped bike lane through the Five Points intersection — can’t hurt to have comments saying we need that.
• It would also help slow traffic & protect kids if there were real traffic control at Vacation & Military. We won’t get that in this project, but good to get that note in.
• However, there’s a stretch between two churches — no reason not to do PBLs there.

On Lorcom:

• Nacto calls for PBLs
• See above re: residential.
• The real question here is: currently, we have a bike lane northbound/downhill and sharrows southbound/uphill. But generally you choose a bike lane up hill if you have to choose one. However, there is a stretch of the sidewalk on the northbound side that would be immediately beside traffic if you switch the bike lane & sharrows.
• As an alternative, you could have an uphill bike lane for the entire stretch, and a downhill bike lane to protect the sidewalk if you allocated space away from parking for about a block and a half.

[dasgeh]

@smb9600 191687 wrote:

Just FIVE DAYS left to take advantage of the Early Bird pricing! Think about all the emergency supplies you could buy yourself with that extra $15-20!!! http://www.DRTArlington.com

For the record, I did not dislike that post. There was an errant mouseclick, and…

[dasgeh]

@Henry 191618 wrote:

Sharing the follow-up email from the County sent to to those interested in the project. On a personal note, I went early to the public meeting at W-L on Wednesday *June 5*and witnessed pretty strong home-owner opposition to the project. If you support these, I suggest you weigh in at every opportunity, because I am confident they will.

Thanks Henry (and FTFY)

It’s really frustrating that this is how the County makes decisions. We just had an extensive public process for the Bike Element, where the County Board weighed in to tell staff they weren’t going far enough. And then in the first test, staff doesn’t even propose one option that is consistent with the Bike Element that was just adopted. And in not doing so, they have skewed public perception — the public thinks that a compromise would be something between A and C, when C is already a compromise down from what the County Board adopted as policy in the Bike Element.

[dasgeh]

Looks awesome! We were bummed to miss it — a ill-timed stomach bug, and having the kids on my own conspired against us making it to Crystal City, though we did roll down to the Ballston pit stop to say hi to some all stars.

[dasgeh]

@ShawnoftheDread 191562 wrote:

So the Key Bridge inbound route is nearly blocked by a huge sign announcing a future road closure, and the TR Bridge route is nearly blocked by downed foliage. Heckava job, DDOT.

I can confirm the TR Bridge blockage has been removed.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 191575 wrote:

I think we should improve safety on the trails, so that does not happen. We need a way to gather scooters improperly left on the bridges, MVT, etc, whether private juicers or the companies doing it. They probably need trailers pulled by ebikes to collect them – if NPS can’t see their way to legalizing even class 3 ebikes on the trails, they could grant a waiver to ones run by the scooter companies for scooter collection. They may need to do pick up on the bridges and trails cooperatively – IE not Spin collecting Spin scooters, Bird collecting Bird, etc, but they may all need to go in together.

I just saw the LYFT trike when I was out for a run today. Rider was so nice.

[dasgeh]

@ShawnoftheDread 191562 wrote:

So the Key Bridge inbound route is nearly blocked by a huge sign announcing a future road closure, and the TR Bridge route is nearly blocked by downed foliage. Heckava job, DDOT.

Which side of the Key Bridge? Downstream?

[dasgeh]

@ShawnoftheDread 191562 wrote:

So the Key Bridge inbound route is nearly blocked by a huge sign announcing a future road closure, and the TR Bridge route is nearly blocked by downed foliage. Heckava job, DDOT.

Which side of the Key Bridge? Downstream?

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 191560 wrote:

So when someone riding a bicycle like Leslie gets hurt because of a scooter left in a MUP, they should just be thankful that the person who left the scooter didn’t ride Uber/Lyft? I don’t want to be part of any team that will reject any suggestions to improve public safety because they can come up with unlikely factual scenarios and won’t give consideration to anything that could impinge on scooter use. You guys sound a lot like the NRA.

I am very glad that Leslie was not hit by a Uber/Lyft.

I’m all for efforts to increase public safety, if they, you know, increase public safety. Brainstorming ideas that could increase public safety is great, but if under examination, there’s an idea that would lead to more car trips (i.e. decrease public safety), then we should call it out.

Other ideas that could address bad parking while not increasing car trips:
– require scooters to be reflective all over (not all black)
– require better kickstands
– establish more clear parking guidelines
– develop/require better systems to alert users when the scooters are going to run out of battery
– develop/require better systems to pick up scooters that have run out of battery
– develop/require better systems for “sweeping” the trails for scooters.

[dasgeh]

@bentbike33 191545 wrote:

What is the final configuration going to be, pedestrian or bike lanes nearest the car travel lanes? If bikes are next to the road, the curb-cut issue will not be solved by another layer of asphalt finished with a good roller.

Officially a 16′ wide, multiuse trail. Years ago I brought up mode separation, and was told the best we could hope for was separation via paint at the end of the project. I don’t think that’s the plan, though it would be consistent with the Bike Element.

I would email the County if you think mode separation with paint is a good idea. des-teo@arlingtonva.us (that might not be the right one, but they should get it to the right person)

[Author]

Posts