[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?

[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 ?

[dasgeh]

Dismal, I get it. You are advocating for what helps you. But it doesn’t help many. There seems to be no convincing you that it’s worth serving the masses, even if it moderately downgrades what you get. It also seems to fall on deaf ears to point out that increasing the number of cyclists will make you safer, thus benefiting you.

As someone who talks to “interested but concerned” folks often, they won’t bike on the neighborhood streets because (1) they are still mixing with cars; (2) the routes are not easy to remember or follow; and (3) the routes are hillier. It’s no coincidence that many of the major routes are the flattest and most connected in the County — they were designed to avoid the hills and connect far destinations back when people used horses. So, yes, we need safe and comfortable bike infrastructure on all major aerterials. PBLs without parking should be fine on roads with many driveways.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 188277 wrote:

I was referring to the conventional bike lanes on Wilson west of Ballston. (Speaking of Wilson in Rosslyn, I also have less problems with PBLs on uphill segments where escape routes are less of a priority.)

Part of the issue is that the character of Arlington varies by location. PBLs seem to be more justifiable (although not necessarily to me) in denser settings. Outside of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, North Arlington seems too single family homish and spread out to justify PBLs supporting short trips and slow riders. Furthermore, there are many lightly trafficked side streets as alternatives.

I didn’t push for the bike lanes on Wilson west of Ballston and don’t think they add much to the bike network. If they were protected, I would have a different opinion.

It’s rich that you are in the distinct minority, even among the minority of folks who ride today, in wanting to ride in travel lanes, and then deride us for pushing for PBLs because not enough people will use them, when studies and surveys show more people will use them than what you use. C’mon.

As for the destinations near Westover: aside from the 2 schools & 2 churches, both with daycares, the Westover shops & restaurants, the dentist office and the library, in the immediate area, a sample of destinations within 3 miles (a short bike ride, when it’s usually faster to bike than drive) include:
– 13 schools
– 3 university campuses
– 4 community centers
– 4 outdoor pools & 2 indoor pools
– 20 playgrounds + another handful of parks without playgrounds
– Lee Harrison shops
– Ballston Quarter, which also has a movie theater and the ice rinks
– Everything at Seven Corners (mmmm, dim sum)
– 8 Safeways, 3 Giants, & 3 Harris Teeters
– 6 CVS, 2 walgreens & Preston’s Pharmacy
– District Taco
– EFC Metro (and everywhere that goes)

Need I go on?

North Arlington has plenty of destinations that people would bike to if it were safe. I have the conversation all the time.

[dasgeh]

@Crickey7 188259 wrote:

Do you wear a GoPro? I find it helps with harassers if I point to it and shout that they are being filmed.

Or just give the video to Pentagon police. If he’s a regular there it’s possible he works there…

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 188247 wrote:

And that is the whole problem. When you carve PBLs out of the existing infrastructure you make it more dangerous for higher speed cyclists who prefer “mixed” situations but only have left narrow traffic lanes where cars “can’t” pass cyclists. “Bicycling advocates” seem to be saying that higher speed, experienced cyclists to go to hell.

No, we’re saying that the priority is to build infrastructure that increases mode share, and if that means that there’s no room left on the road for vehicular cyclists to be passed, then the cars can sit an wait behind you.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 188241 wrote:

… In other words, Dismal can now go play in the street with now narrower lanes and with no opportunities for cars to pass him.

Sorry, the bicyclist community is not monolithic in interests or riding styles.

@DismalScientist 188242 wrote:

I think it is utterly foolish to think we can design PBLs so that Isabella can actually be safe in a PBL. A safe, fully segregated system would require separate bike paths (with separate signals at all intersections) paralleling all streets with traffic. PBLs are a poor half measure. We do not have the land nor the money for such a fully segregated system. Remember that distances are longer in this country than Europe. If such a system were fully utilized, we will have conflicts between faster and slower cyclists (and other users–what do we do with these damned electric scooters). If the bicycle infrastructure only allows low speeds, my commute by bicycle becomes untenable. A congested system of one type simply cannot accommodate all styes of cycling.

Taken together, you sound like your saying we should prioritize the Dismals in designing bike infrastructure. Sorry, dude, but when we do that, we’re left with a dismal (ha!) mode share. We have to increase mode share to (1) keep our cities livable; (2) keep municipal costs down; (3) create affordable housing; and (4) save the planet. Which means we have to design for the 60% interested but concerned. Isabelle is the ideal of that group.

@DismalScientist 188242 wrote:

When my kids were 8 (or at least when they couldn’t hold their lines), I would only let them ride on little trafficked streets. Traffic awareness comes at an older age than holding ones line. The next step up would be trails and then unprotected bike lanes on not too busy arterials (certainly after they hold their lines). I would not let my kids ride in PBLs or on sidewalks on busy streets until they are fully situationally aware of traffic on the main road and of potential dangers from turning vehicles. Since they are not on the main road, this is a more difficult task than if they were in an unprotected bike path. My kids are in high school now and I don’t think I would ever suggest them using a PBL.

All kids are different, but I’m certain I’ve ridden bikes with more kids than you. IME, they are very good at paying attention to discrete things (“careful, an intersection is coming up”) but not at sustained attention (which is why they slowly drift). That’s why well-designed, protected infrastructure, which keeps conflict points to a minimum, is crucial.

And kids ride on their own to school in large numbers the Netherlands and Denmark. It’s not a pipe dream to say they can handle it, if you build it right.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 188235 wrote:

Very true. Yet it should be noted that most PBLs also endanger Isabella for the same reasons. Any separated bicycle facility that permits vehicles to turn across it requires its users to be very street-savvy and hyper-attentive. Even more so if the riders are under four feet tall and thus less likely to be noticed by drivers. Daylighting will certainly help more drivers see Isabella. What 8yo has the kind of situational awareness needed to protect herself from the variety of traffic risks she faces in this environment?

I don’t know how often you ride with 8 year olds. My daughter is 8 and I ride with her often, and I lead rides with kids around that age. They get the concept of intersections and even driveways. I find they are very aware of those discrete dangers. They can drift off their lines, which is why the protected part is important. And they aren’t great at reading the signs of parked-car danger (look for someone in the car, lights on, etc).

@scoot 188236 wrote:

I think we agree more than we disagree. I agree with both of these points. Where separated infrastructure is installed, it needs maximal visibility. Daylighting can help; ideally there would be no parking in between at all.

I simply challenge the notion that proliferation of PBLs is the best approach (presuming that our long-term goals are to simultaneously maximize vulnerable road users’ mobility and safety while minimizing our collective transportation carbon footprint). Yes they increase ridership a bit today. But we cannot make a truly substantial impact unless we focus our attention on the elephant in the room: the car culture of speed, distraction, and negligence.

I think the best way to address car culture is to give people other ways to get around, so they stop seeing a driving as a God-given right, necessary to 21st century life. I know walking and biking around is what changed my mindset. I think the way to give people other ways to travel means large investments in transit and development of a complete safe and comfortable bike network. Building OK bike infra is just not going to move the needle for most people.

Building an incomplete bike network is also not going to move the needle for most people, but building the network one segment at a time will get us to a complete network eventually. If we only build the OK infra, we’ll never get there.

[dasgeh]

@SarahBee 188219 wrote:

You, nervous Nellie on 14th street bridge headed west in a stiff cross wind who could barely keep control of your Cabi. Me, the person heading eastbound that you sandwiched into the guard rail when the wind picked up. Thank you for stopping to apologize and make sure I was okay, but it would have been nicer of you to get off me first before doing so. Thankfully the only injury/casualty was my lunch sandwich, which did not survive the you, me, guard rail sandwich. I’m buying myself a salad!

With any other collision on the 14th St Bridge, traffic would be snared for the entire morning. Bike collision? “hey, sorry about that. You ok?” “Yeah, you?” “Yeah, have a good day” “ok you too”. No traffic-magedon.

Sorry about your lunch

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 188222 wrote:

As an aside, some folks above mentioned issues with cars parking into the buffer of PBLs. I made a point of checking that on the SB Eads street PBL the last time I rode there. Something like 90% or more cars there were completely outside the buffer – and the ones that were parked on the buffer were parked only a few inches onto it – none were parked against the flexposts. Not sure why behavior is better in that regard on Eads Street (note in many other ways driver behavior on Eads is terrible)

Maybe because Eads St has been around a while? Wilson, Veitch and Quincy are new, so maybe it’s just growing pains?

[dasgeh]

@scoot 188217 wrote:

But WHY is ridership higher in cycletracks?

Two reasons:
1) a culture which prioritizes vehicle speeds over safety almost everywhere
2) a poor understanding of the relative collision risks between different types of lanes

Due to #1, many people are afraid to take the risk of riding a bicycle in shared space at all. Due to #2, they think PBLs are safer than conventional bike lanes or sharrows, when in fact the opposite is often true (e.g. where they reduce one’s likelihood of being seen by turning drivers).

The fact that cycletracks presently boost ridership does not mean that more cycletracks are the optimal way to improve safety or to increase ridership in the long-term.

I disagree. People feel more comfortable in protected infrastructure, and many won’t ride without protection. Thus, it’s our (read: the County’s) responsibility to make the protected infrastructure we build as safe as possible. To do that, we need solid barriers and no parking near conflict points.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 188206 wrote:

I am sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you (or anyone else here) opposed traffic calming. My intent was to push back on the defeatism I read in the bolded phrase. I believe it is possible to transform any busy street into a place that is pleasant for cycling. And it doesn’t require any bicycle-specific infrastructure to do so in places like Westover, just a willingness to acknowledge and fix the real issue: too many speeding cars.

This is where thinking about Isabella may lead to a different outcome. I agree most adults can get comfortable biking through what are essentially parking lots — slow moving cars, even with lots of turning movements (into and out of parking spaces).

But introduce kids in the mix, and there’s a different calculus. It would be a stretch to get elementary age kids to evaluate all the possible sources of danger with parking cars. Then there’s the height issue — at the BAC/Phoenix meeting, we heard from one teenager who rides a lot that she fears drivers just can’t see her around parked cars because she’s not tall.

So, yes, too many speeding cars is an issue. But too many parking cars is also an issue for design that truly works for all.

[dasgeh]

@NickBull 188112 wrote:

Not because of any lack of bike paths, but because no one commutes on Washington Blvd. If you want to commute, you commute on the W&OD or Custis, where you’re less likely to get killed. If Westover is your destination, then it’s easy enough to get there on back roads coming from the bike paths or through the neighborhoods.

@DismalScientist 188113 wrote:

Why is it necessary or even desirable to make comprehensive, safe and comfortable bike infrastructure everywhere for folks like Isabella and simultaneously eliminate what I consider appropriate and desirable riding conditions for my type of riding?

They are building a school IN WESTOVER. And yes, most people don’t bike on Washington because it sucks to bike there. But it’s the flattest and most direct route through that area. Many people don’t bike because of the hills, and because the current routes are complicated and hard to follow. This is about expanding the number of people who bike. We won’t do that by relegating bikes to hilly, indirect, hard to follow routes. That’s why we need safe comfortable bike infrastructure everywhere.

If you still want to take the road, you can. But we need numbers, which means building infrastructure for the greater number of people who would ride on PBLs than the people who do ride like Dismal.

[dasgeh]

I love PBLs. I think we should have PBLs on all major streets in Arlington.

However, we shouldn’t build PBLs that have obstructed views of conflict points. Parking will obstruct views, so, in my opinion, PBLs that are beside parking are most appropriate on streets where there are few driveways.

On this stretch, the ideal would be to build one-way (i.e. one on each side) PBLs without parking where there are driveways. If you did a two-way cycletrack, on one side, I would want to see a parking pulled for a significant distance from each driveway, which would mean all parking removed for some of those blocked. That’s a heavy lift. Not that we shouldn’t propose it, but it’s a really heavy lift.

[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.

[Author]

Posts