[dasgeh]

Glad it wasn’t worse. So so sorry this happened. This is my husband’s route to and from preschool (half the time with our 3.5 year old) Terrifying.

[dasgeh]

Veitch St, along the new pbl, is residential permit parking.

[dasgeh]

I’m also disappointed the project does not involve mode separation on the Custis.

[dasgeh]

@Erin Potter 183383 wrote:

I shouldn’t be impressed, but I kind of am…

Thanks for spotting. I’ve forwarded this, but issues with the Custis Trail Improvement Construction (between N Scott Street and N Lynn Street) can also be sent to the VDOT construction manager, Tom Mulcahy.

I don’t think it’s for that project. They seem to be working on something at the apartment buildings when I went through this am.

[dasgeh]

Hey admins – the subject should be “December 2018 ABAC meeting: Tonight, 12/3/18, 7pm 2100 Clarendon Blvd.”

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 183266 wrote:

I’m not sure why this wasn’t the priority to build with the I-66 funds. It would make sense in conjunction with the I-66 widening and have more impact than crossing over US-29.

I see why the bridge over 29 was the priority, but I agree that a bridge over Sycamore and the on ramp should be the next priority. And it can still be built with tolling funds (which reminds me to look into what kinds of funds are rolling in and how they’re being used).

First step is to make sure that bridge is a priority in Arlington’s new Bike Element. email bikeplanupdate@arlingtonva.us

[dasgeh]

@n18 183255 wrote:

Unfortunately, without restrictions, we get jerks who would abuse the trails, and then more calls to restrict them. In other states, they came up with no E-Bikes signs, and trust me, they are not pretty to look at. It disadvantage people with health issues and seniors. See this Google mages link.
[…]
I suppose that instead of GPS/RFID that E-Bikes could have two buttons(Road/Trail), so the user presses one depending on the situation, but there is nothing stopping jerks from using Road mode always.

To your first point, from my relatively long, but admittedly anecdotal experience I think that ebikers are, on average, more polite bikers than non-ebikers. They’re more willing to slow behind a ped, more willing to stop at reds, more likely to give lots of room when passing. I think it goes to the human inclination to not want to “waste” speed that you’ve “earned” — on an ebike, you don’t feel so invested in your speed, getting back up to speed is easy, and you feel like it’s easy to “make up” lost time.

On your second point, most ebikes (all that I’ve ridden, except CaBi Plus?) have multiple settings. They don’t limit the speed, but limit the assist, which is better at making an ebike like a regular bike, anyway (because “trail” mode wouldn’t be limited to 10mph all the time — most people can get even a CaBi up to at least 15 if not 20mph on a good downhill — not that they should, just making things alike).

Generally, I think ebikes flatten the ability curve. Sure, there should be a restriction such that we don’t give ebikers super-human abilities, but it’s reasonable to give them fit-human abilities, then trust that folks on ebikes, just like fit-humans on non-ebikes, will behave appropriately.

[dasgeh]

@n18 183216 wrote:

Here is what I suggest for E-Bikes: All E-Bikes should have two modes:

1 – Road mode: No speed limit.
2 – Trail mode: Full power(Up to 10 MPH, for hills), 200 Watts limit between 10 and 15 MPH, perhaps gradually reducing power, then cut off after that, but the rider can still peddle.

The numbers above are just suggestions, I don’t ride an E-Bike, so I don’t know if these are reasonable.

How counties can enforce them:

1 – Require E-Bike manufacturers to include GPS, and county rules are uploaded to it and applied automatically.
2 – No GPS, but counties put RFID chips at trail heads, and E-Bikes read the rules and apply them automatically.

Finally, it doesn’t make sense to me to outlaw E-Bikes altogether, 10 MPH is fine, or even 7 to 8 MPH in some cases.

Just to pile on: I’ve never seen GPS be precise enough to distinguish between, e.g. the Custis Trail in Rosslyn and Lee Hwy. Having the motor suddenly cap at 10pm while on Lee Hwy beside the Custis Trail would be a bad thing. It would have the effect of encouraging ebike users to use the Trail instead of the street, which is the opposite of what we want (if riders are willing to use the street, they should, so the trail has more capacity).

Also, 200W is ridiculously low. Personally, I’d leave everything on the speed limit, and allow the fact that it’s expensive and eats battery to have more power. But, if you’re hauling a lot of weight, you need that power just to get up the hills. If we want families with kids to bike more, we need ebikes with more power. If we want a future where more deliveries are made by bike, we need ebikes with more power.

Also, have you ever biked 7-8 mph. That’s the speed we go on Kidical Mass rides (rides with kids on their own bikes). It’s difficult for many adults to ride that slowly and stay upright — ask those here who have ridden with us. Any speed limit under 15mph is laughable imo.

[dasgeh]

When you say “Washington Blvd” do you mean “Washington St” aka Lee Hwy?

Chris is right – the new bridge is just a way to avoid crossing the street at grade. However, many of us would like to see a bridge on the W&OD from approx. the EFC Metro to East Falls Church Park (i.e. over Sycamore Street and the I66 on ramp) so that cyclists can avoid the EFC neighborhood and Benjamin Bannaker Park altogether.

[dasgeh]

Ugh, DES. Virginia law allows ebikes on trails (section 46.2-903) and does not give localities the authority to change that. Enter Dillon Rule and the Arlington ordinance violates state law. ACPD has said as much and has said they allow ebikes on trails.

@buschwacker 183191 wrote:

I’d love to meet up with someone from Arlington DES and let them ride my RadCity a bit. The difference would be made clear.

There’s at least one person who works in the County building who rides a RadWagon, and I think he’s in DES…

[dasgeh]

@komorebi 183153 wrote:

I rode a CaBi Plus for the first time today, and I actually didn’t like it very much. The Plusses are heavier and more unwieldy than the regular CaBis, which are already tanks. And the e-assist kicked in and cut out unpredictably, which made for a jerky ride. Possibly it was a problem with that particular bike, or possibly I would have gotten more used to the e-assist over a longer ride. But that’s now the third model of e-bike that I’ve tried, and I haven’t liked any of them. Maybe I’m just not meant to ride e-bikes.

I’ve ridden 2 Plusses and never experienced this. I thought they were really great ebikes.

I’ve ridden a bunch ebikes, generally, and most newer models ride like regular bikes, just stronger.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 182740 wrote:

This appears to be what the Commonwealth promises to fund directly as part of the deal (and yeah, a lot of people in the City are breathing a sigh of relief about the metro entrance, though that may be a narrow take on this whole thing)

I guess, the DCA bridge aside, the Commonwealth is not getting into the local bike planning or funding. They are doing the larger ticket items (though nothing here about Long Bridge and VRE).

Arlington and Alexandria will have to address local bike improvements. To get involved in the discussions for Alexandria, I suggest following BPAC – come to our monthy meetings, get on our email lists, follow our FB page and join our FB group – look at #alexandriaBPAC on twitter.

For Arlington, may I take this opportunity to suggest that creating a bypass for the 4MRT either over or under Shirlington Road is more urgent than ever?

Arlington is updating it’s bike plan, and we’ll need to make sure we’ve thought hard about Crystal City/Pentagon City. That FMR route under Shirlington Road, and the Eads St alternative to the MVT are very important. I think making DCA super-bike-friendly would be great for all: better bike parking (secure, covered, options to leave your helmet, etc), more clear connection to the MVT, space for bikes on the new bridge from CC, a bike room ala SEATAC.

Also, I think it’s worth thinking about ways to improve the MVT. I suspect the issue is money, so who will pay for it? Would Amazon if it became got some naming rights or something?

[dasgeh]

Thanks for coming out to the BAC.

And to anyone interested in seeing MTB, cyclocross and pump tracks in Arlington, the time is now to comment on the Parks’ Master Plan.

Instructions and talking points in this FB post.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 182518 wrote:

I think you misunderstand. The unsafe infrastructure I am referring to are the general travel lanes. Sorry, but I don’t want to ride on a PBL down Fairfax during rush hour. Nor do I want to ride in the general travel lanes down Fairfax in rush hour. I am, however, perfectly content to ride in the unprotected bike lanes during rush hour.

There seems to be this notion out there that the bicycle infrastructure in some place in Europe is ideal. However, this sort of infrastructure seems to be designed for low average speeds. This may be fine in dense urban areas where the average ride is a mile or two. What do faster riders do in Europe? Either they take to the road or suck it up and go slowly. Well, I have a commute of about 8 miles at its shortest. This probably isn’t considered a very long commute in this area. However, a European-style bicycle infrastructure isn’t conducive to such long distances–at least for me. I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of mode shifting to bicycles due to adding PBLs due to the lack of density in this area. Look at how unsuccessful dockless bike sharing is. Everything is moving to e-bikes and scooters because people are basically lazy. Sorry, but I don’t view our biking infrastructure clogged with scooters as a transportation panacea.

(1) When an unprotected lane is beside parking (as on most of the streets you mentioned), where in the lane do you ride? Assuming you’re answer is on the left side, do you find drivers ever give you 3 feet? In my experience the answer is no – they think they’re in their lane, so they’re fine. Because of this, door zone bike lanes are, imo, less safe than a regular travel lane. I certainly don’t ride with my kids in them.

(2) You matter, but we can’t design an entire city around you. Sorry.

(3) Are you comfortable on 9th St N (That’s parallel to Fairfax)? On 8th St N (parallel to Pershing)? Generally, I don’t think we should shove the majority of cyclists on to more circuitous, side-street routes, but if there’s a minority that needs something that conflicts with the majority, this seems like a solution.

(4) I’m not getting this from any “notion” about Europe. I’m getting this from data and from the real experience of riding with my kids. They’re getting bigger. There’s going to be a point where I can’t get them all on a bike, even with e-assist, so if there’s not infrastructure that’s safe enough for them to bike in, we’re going to be a car family.

(5) The Netherlands is putting in long distance cyclepaths with high speed limits on the stretches between cities. There’s an entire book describing all the wonderful things going on over there. You may want to read it.

(6) I totally agree with you that e-assist is the key that will open up cycling American-level distances to most people. Protected infrastructure is what will get folks to actually ebike those distances.

[dasgeh]

PS. This will be voted on at the December meeting. Keep discussing. Tell other folks. The survey won’t make the decision for us, but it’ll be good information.

[Author]

Posts