[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]

@zsionakides 187986 wrote:

Soil retention makes sense for the concrete barrier next to the power line pole, but it doesn’t make sense on the curb cut for the road. If you see the curb cut they build on the southwest corner by the Shell station, it’s wide and easy to navigate for bikes crossing both Walter Reed or Four Mile Run.

I’m 100% guessing here, but I would bet that either, the area by the pole is slightly lower than the road, so they (think they) need the curb by the road to keep water from flowing into the sidewalk/bike path/whatever that is; or they think this is such a big area that cars would end up driving on the sidewalk/bike path/whatever that is if there weren’t a vertical barrier (that may even be an ADA thing). As to the water, if the topography is such that the area by the light pole would become a pond without the second curb, then just removing the second curb doesn’t work.

Not excusing the design, but it helps to know what the real issue is to come up with a solution.

[dasgeh]

@creadinger 187950 wrote:

Am I wrong in thinking that saddle height should be considered a sacred position and no one but the owner should modify it without risking death from fire and brimstone?

On a road bike, I agree that saddle height should be considered a sacred position and think that the owner should make sure they know what their optimal height is and make sure it’s set correctly after letting others use or repair their bike.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 187851 wrote:

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

I forgot about the tree-thingys. They definitely make things more difficult, but I wonder whether there’s an option to use ramps to have a PBL go up onto those…

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 187866 wrote:

I’m referring to the south side of Washington Blvd (the side of Lost Dog), where cars park parallel to the curb. No buffer in that situation would stop car doors from opening into the bike lane.

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.

[dasgeh]

@CaseyKane50 187852 wrote:

I have seen similar curb treatments in Alexandria on both city projects and VDOT projects. My recollection is that this is an ADA requirement to help visually impaired users detect the edge of the sidewalk and the direction of the ramp.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19566[/ATTACH]

I’ve been told that curbs like that are almost always about water management and/or soil retention.

[dasgeh]

@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:

No. Of course you would need a barrier between parking and the bike lane. But it could be a standard parking barrier

[dasgeh]

As a follow-up to the excellent February meeting we had with the Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I’ve attached the report of bike/ped crashes in 2018 in Arlington County and the answers to our questions submitted in advanced. Lt Murphy noted two things about the report (which is updated from the meeting):
The bike accident number is slightly higher, 52 to 57. That is still a 29% reduction from last year.
Page 8, Driver/Rider/Pedestrian Behaviors is what was not complete at the time of the meeting. When you look at those tables, if the number doesn’t add up to 100%, it’s because the remaining categories were not significant, ie. there were one or two instances.
All are welcome!

Wait, I don’t seem to be able to attach PDFs. Thoughts?

[dasgeh]

A few more details from WABA’s site:

Training Options

Apply to be considered for one or more of the following free training options:

League Certified Instructor (LCI) Seminar (24-hours)
Description: To become an LCI, you’ll need to complete this comprehensive 3-day LCI Seminar. As a prerequisite, you must also complete the 1-day Smart Cycling Class at least one month prior to the seminar as well as an open-book assessment.
Dates/Times: April 26 (5pm-9pm), 27 (8am-9pm), 28 (8am-3pm)
Location: George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Smart Cycling class (8-hours)
Description: Gain bicycle safety knowledge and skills by completing this class online and 6-hour classroom/on-bike.
Dates (Select one): March 15 or 16 (back-up dates March 22 or 23) from 10am-4pm
Location(s): George Mason University, Manassas, VA (March 15 & 22) and George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (March 16 & 23)

Pedestrian Safety Training class (4-hours)
Description: Gain pedestrian safety knowledge and skills by completing this four hour class over two evenings.
Dates: March 20 and 27, 2019 from 7am-9pm
Location: Arlington Transportation Partners, Rosslyn, VA

Key Requirements

Participants must attend all applicable training dates.
Participants must commit to doing at least two community pedestrian and bicycling safety outreach events by September 15 and one more by January 2020. Select from this calendar of outreach events or choose your own.
Must have a local government or lead organization mentor that will help you identify outreach events that supports bicycle and pedestrian safety in the region.
[/quote]

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 187833 wrote:

The Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, in the past, would sometimes be given the opportunity to look at detailed designs and plans. The current ArlCo Administration has indicated that they prefer the BAC not weigh in on details of projects, despite the fact that we have the on-the-ground expertise and bicyclists’ insight. At least twice in the last couple of years, ArlCo has had to go back and spend money and time changing something that would have been done correctly in the first place had they engaged the BAC along the way.

Some other things:
– The cut is not aligned with the crosswalk. Perhaps they are going to repaint. However, I can imagine someone starting to cross there, being struck by a right-turning driver, and being cited for “crossing outside the crosswalk.”
– The radius seems rather large, encouraging drivers to speed around the corner. Drivers’ sightlines to people crossing here are not ideal, particularly if they have the green and this big, round curve to zoom around.
– Is the pushbutton pointing towards the crossing of Walter Reed? That seems pretty inconveniently located. I’m reasonably certain that no button should be needed here to cross Walter Reed, since Four-Mile Run is the main throughfare and already turns to “Walk” without the need for a button. At least that’s been my experience.
==============
Upon review, it appears that pushbutton has always been there (at least according to Google Street view). They should remove it.

Adding to the frustration here is that Arlington DES has asked for general considerations that they should keep in mind while designing projects, to minimize the amount of back and forth. I get wanting that efficiency.

But top on every list the BAC has given to DES and every discussion DES has had with the BAC about this are (1) those right angle curb cuts; and (2) the need to design with long wheelbases in mind. These issues were discussed _in conjunction with this project_ and generally. And seemingly ignored in final design.

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 187744 wrote:

Wouldn’t that create a gauntlet of passenger doors flying open into the bike lane with no bail out option other than to run into the curb?

Cars park perpendicular to the curb here, so doors open far from the curb/potential bike lane.

And any bike lane to the inside of parallel parking would have a buffer.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 187733 wrote:

The current configuration is much like what used to be in front of the Lutheran Church a few blocks to the west. It will be interesting to see if the county has the balls to propose back-in diagonal parking there. Somehow I doubt we will see a reduction in parking to add space for dedicated bike lanes here (not that I would advocate that).

Seems like it would be wide enough there to put bike lanes next to the curb, and leave the parking at the same angle, just closer to travel lanes. Yes, the parking cars would impede the travel lane but…

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187729 wrote:

A quick example that’s in the already funded project list is the Crystal Dr bike lane. Per NATCO standards that facility should be a PBL or bicycle path based on Crystal Drive’s traffic count, but they have just have a bicycle lane planned. Another one is the proposed “marked” bicycle lane on Lee Hwy between Veitch and Lynn, that implies striped and not protected, which is not within NATCO standards for a multi-lane road of that speed.

The bike “lanes to nowhere” comment is a general comment I have about the order that major projects are undertaken. My view is that any sizeable project should connect to an already existing used bicycle facility to ensure it’s being used. Otherwise it drives the narrative about unused bikes lanes taking up space for general travel lanes. A recent example I can think of is the buffered/protected lanes put on Van Dorn St in Alexandria between King and Braddock. Neither end connects to any other bike lane, so only confident riders are going to use them, which does almost nothing to increase overall ridership.

The already funded list shows projects that are not being proposed by this plan, but that are already in the works. To change from striped to protected would be a new, separate project, and I believe Crystal is one of the corridors for better facilities. I’ll double check.

Lee was clearly a mistake. That should have been a two-way protected cycletrack on the north side of westbound Lee from Lynn to Cherrydale. I am reasonably confident it will come back.

As far as the order of projects, Arlington generally builds projects where feasible. So, e.g., when Washington Blvd was being repaved, they put in the bike lanes. There was no bike-specific project that drove that. You’re left with an unconnected network that way. But the alternatives are:
– lobby for a large pot of money to tackle bike-only projects (more power to you in doing this, but budgets are tight, and the next opportunity you have to change the capital budget is summer 2020). OR
– not put in bike facilities when doing other projects. I don’t think anyone wants that.

[dasgeh]

This morning everything — even the nooks and crannies — on the eastern Custis – MVT – TR Bridge was completely clear.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187466 wrote:

I submitted comments to the master plan, and submit comments on other projects as well. Most of my comments on the master plan were around the types of facilities being proposed, as very few of them actually meet NACTO guidelines. There are better designs used in other countries that could be adopted and provide safer bike facilities without sacrificing auto mobility and parking. The use of sharrows and narrow striped lanes next to park cars should not be endorsed by any advocacy group and should not be put on maps as “safe” bike routes, when they are not safe for the majority of citizens. The only way to get bike share up in any significant amount is end to end protected facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities; not just trails, and not bike lanes to nowhere.

Great. Submitting comments is a great start.

I need to read the latest draft, but no draft that I saw called for any paint-only bike lanes. It may have said that sharrows could be used on low-speed residential streetsto indicate where there’s a bike boulevard. It certainly did not endorse “bike lanes to nowhere”. Quite the opposite — the draft plan indicates that we need to build out the network, and identifies where that needs to happen. Most of the routes are along major corridors — Lee, Wilson, Pike, Mason, Glebe.

My biggest criticism of the latest draft that was put out was not it was not transparent. It would indicate where we wanted “improved” bike facilities, and would say that all new bike facilities should comply with NACTO, but wouldn’t explicitly say “put PBLs here”.

[Author]

Posts