[dasgeh]

On the plus side, you could use it like a bell — just start bouncing when you pass pedestrians.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22302 wrote:

You ask how I would get from Bedford to S 2nd on Wash Blvd? I don’t look at routing on such a micro basis. I’m not that familiar with that particular area, but if the question is how would I get from somewhat north of 50 to the gate for Fort Myer on 2nd Street, the answer is that I would take Fillmore to cross 50 to 2nd St. I am not familiar with the bike path along Washington, but I imagine that it crosses the ramps to 50 in some nasty way. I would think the street route would be safer.

My point is that you have to look at routing on such a micro basis. Just to look at this example (it was on my old commute, so I’ve very familiar): Fillmore has a huge hill, and getting around the hill involves either Washington Blvd or a huge detour (if you’re starting/heading East). In fact, between the hill and the length of the detour, lots of people choose to bike on Washington Blvd. The sidewalks along the southbound side of Washington are horrendous. It’s not actually that bad to bike southbound on Washington until you get to 50 — then it turns into a highway.

Which leads me to my other point is that shared works better sometimes and segregated works better sometimes. The MUP beside Washington south of 50 is actually pretty good — it absolutely needs to be wider under the bridge, and the crossings of the exit ramps need better lighting and signage, but those crossings are far better (in the daylight) than any near Memorial Bridge. So I’m ok with the solution of shared access (with better signage) on Washington Blvd until 50, and a MUP to get from that point up to 2nd Street.

I’m not saying that cyclists should always take the most direct route. But I am saying that some detours are just too long, and in practice people won’t take them. They’ll go with other options: take a busy road, salmon, take a sidewalk, or *gasp* drive. If our goal is to design facilities to promote safe cycling, we have to realize that most people won’t take unreasonable detours (or bike up steep hills). We have to figure out a way to make the direct (or direct-ish) routes safer, or admit that we’re not serving that part of the community.

Oh, and when I ride on L and M, it’s in the middle of the day. Traffic moves at a pretty good clip then. I think you have to take that into account as well.

[dasgeh]

@acc 22257 wrote:

Rather than contaminate yet another sport, this needs to stop now. He needs to clear himself before taking on the triathlon world.

How could he possibly clear himself?

Don’t get me wrong, if there’s new evidence, and it’s clear he was doping, the world needs to know. But if this is based on the evidence that the world already knows, then come on. Proving a negative, especially one that happened in the past, is nearly impossible. It’s just getting old. And I have a hard time assuming that there’s new info.

Others make great points. I’ll also point out that the man went through some amazing and drastic medical procedures to beat his cancer. Great for him. He survived them, and showed amazing strength in doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those altered his body in a way that made him a better cyclist. Which is kinda what doping is. But I wouldn’t complain about it (I don’t think he was doing any of that in order to become a better cyclist, but just to survive).

[dasgeh]

@JeffC 22273 wrote:

4) Speaking of which, I doubt we’ll get a bikes only path anytime soon but given the restrictions on I66 use, one would think we could have something similar on many stretches of the Custis and W&OD, especially when there are sidewalks a block away that pedestrians and joggers could easily use. Would it be so unreasonable to make the Custis bikes only from 4 to 7 pm on weekdays from say April through October? And since Artlington has specific dog parks, would it be too much to ban dogs altogether from MUPs, given the narrow lanes and length of leashes? I’m not anti-dog, I have one and love dogs but would never take him to walk on a MUP, especially in the afternoon.

+1 for banning dogs. Please. Pretty please.

And even if we can’t get bikes only, clear signage indicating that the MUPs are for bikes along with everyone else, that everyone should stay right, expect to be passed, and when being passed, people should walk single file and keep pets and children close and under control.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22242 wrote:

Routing is very important for cycling safety. I wouldn’t choose to ride on a busy/unfriendly street just because it happens to be the most direct route.

You seem to agree that the situation of distance between users and escape paths depends on the route. But that argues against your initial statement that

@DismalScientist 22216 wrote:

Distance between users seem to be a lot closer on MUT than roads. Generally there are a lot more escape paths on a road than a MUT.

I think your point about routing goes to the bigger picture: the most appropriate solution for bike facilities depends on the particular location. For example, to get from Washington Blvd (say, at N Bedford) to S 2nd Street, what to you suggest is the best option? Shared facilities on Washington Blvd itself? Encourage cyclists to take the road (that’s kind of an exit ramp from 50W to 27S) to Fillmore Street and cross there? Or a segregated path (which is what’s there now, though it’s sub-par in its current design). And for cyclists coming the other way — are they supposed to take the exit ramp from S 2nd St onto Washington Blvd, fight with the cars getting off onto 50, then continue in the lane on the residential part of Washington Blvd?

I don’t use the 15th Street cycletrack very much, but it does seem like it’s poorly designed — not enough warning for motorists to make it better for cyclists to use, at least heading northbound. I have more hope for the L and M Street cycletracks, if only because the length between blocks is longer (for the parts of familiar with).

So my point is just this: when we’re talking about bikes-cars, there’s no reason to take either segregated or shared off the table, or to myopically look at one street (without looking at the bigger picture of available routes).

I do think, however, that segregating (at least with paint) bikes and peds is important for encouraging cycling to become part of normal transportation.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22216 wrote:

I entirely disagree with this. Distance between users seem to be a lot closer on MUT than roads. Generally there are a lot more escape paths on a road than a MUT. I find that i change my speed much more frequently on MUTs than on roads (except for traffic lights). Of course, an accident on a road has a higher likelihood of carnage.

But on MUTs, going slower is more acceptable and less dangerous than on a busy street. Also, the risk of serious injury if something goes wrong is lower (bike v. bad bump, bike v. slick wood, bike v. pedestrian may hurt, but nothing like bike v. car).

As far as the assertions about the distance between users and number of escape paths, it just depends on where you are. The busy streets I have the most experience with are Washington Blvd and Lee Hwy — lots of cars, not leaving a lot of distance, few escape paths (lots of parked cars, curbs I can’t jump). My experience on MUTs is mainly on the trail beside 27, the trail beside 110 and Custis Rosslyn-Spout Run. Aside from the section of the Custis that is a sidewalk (not really a MUT), I certainly see fewer users, meaning more distance between them, and plenty of nice soft grass to pull into to escape.

So your assertions would need to be verified with data — data that I don’t have, but that my experience and intuition lead me to think would not support your position.

[dasgeh]

One thing I’ve given up: paying $4 to park EVERY TIME I have to go in for a doctor’s appointment. (which, for those of you who haven’t been pregnant, is all the time).

@Dirt 22151 wrote:

One neighbor is the self-appointed home-owner’s association. He’ll actually go and measure how tall the grass is in your yard and call the county when it gets above the county mandated maximum height. He’s not the help though.

County mandated lawn height? WTF? I would ask if Arlington had one, but our new house has rocks instead of grass out front. HOORAY! You could replace with xeriscaping (rocks and low maintenance plants), or, better yet, a veggie garden!

[dasgeh]

Biking south on the Custis this morning, 3 peds came out of a particularly blind walkway (I think it was the walkway that continues from Pierce Street? It was between Quinn and Oak). The first didn’t pause or looked, just stepped out on the trail, looking down in his coffee, talking to his friends. I was headed downhill, but being my conservative self, I was riding my breaks. Had I been going full speed, the guy would have probably walked right into me or in front of me, and I wouldn’t have had time to stop. As is, I had time to slow down enough, to yell, stopping ped #3, and to swerve around #1 and #2 enough to avoid an accident.

So is there a sign or anything for the peds coming on to the trail? I think they’re coming off of stairs, and there is a fence narrowing both their path and their sight lines. Seems like a horrible idea to have on the downhill, protected part of the trail.

[dasgeh]

My new commute takes me from the TR bridge straight along the bridge (headed to Rosslyn). So I don’t have to turn on the slippery, but a couple times, I’ve had some close calls with cyclists who are turning to continue on the MVT.

So who is supposed to have the right-of-way there? It seems like the people coming from the south on the MVT have some sort of sign, but the people turning to continue on the MVT seem to think they don’t need to avoid those of us going straight. I thought it was like any T intersection — you have right of way if you’re going straight. Everyone turning yields. Am I wrong?

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22135 wrote:

My point is that separate infrastructure as designed is often less safe than non-segregated.

What in the world do you mean? I can think of a few examples (say, a blind curve and downhill on FMRT) but “often”? Do you mean less efficient/usable (e.g. Lee/Lynn isn’t really unsafe if you wait for the very beginning of the light cycle when you have the protected walk – it’s just annoying to wait an entire light cycle).

PS. Having to wait 30 secs. between posts is annoying.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

the transitions between segregated and streets and the intersections between streets and segregated facilities can be quite problematic. Witness the Lee/Lynn situation, the crossing of the trails and the GW parkways, potential left and right hooks from on-street cyclotracks, left hooks involving cyclists on sidewalks.

I agree with your first point, but your examples are off. When a segregated becomes a shared facility, we need to pay special attention to the transition to ensure safety (I can use the Lee Hwy in Cherrydale example again, where the bike lane suddenly disappears).
Additionally, where segregated uses cross, we need to pay attention. Lee/Lynn and the GWP crossing are simply poorly thought out crossing. There are no shared facilities in those spots (I’m assuming cyclists get on either the trail or sidewalk from Lee to Lynn there – besides the conflict is with the drivers coming off I66 – no sharing on the off ramp).
@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

One argument against my claim that on-street cycling is likely safer that segregated facilities is one of sample selection. On street cyclists are likely more experienced than those that stick to segregated facilities.

Also, many of the streets that are cycled on are safer – e.g. lots of people bike on 2nd Street South, fewer on 50. Few accidents on 2nd Street does not imply that there would be few accidents on 50.
@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

Lastly, on segregated facilities encouraging more bicycling because of the perception of safety, I would suggest that learning to ride and gaining confidence is much better done on quiet neighborhood streets than on multiuse trails.

It’s not about the first time in the saddle. It’s about the first ride to the store, once you learn/remember how to control the bike. Then about the first ride to work. Of course, a person has to be able to control the bike to go anywhere, but there’s more involved in controlling a bike on a busy street than on a MUT/cycletrack. They could get enough experience to start running errands on a bike pretty quickly on those quiet neighborhood streets, then use the trails/cycletracks to connect to stores, restaurants and eventually work.

[dasgeh]

I agree with KLizotte that a lot of this starts with urban planning, and feel lucky that Arlington (at least partially) “gets it” (e.g. few cul de sacs). But that doesn’t get us all the way there, and the question is how to we get from a pretty good urban design to bike-friendly living. E.g. Where are the gaps where you can’t get from A to B on neighborhood roads – what can we do for those? How can we make the MUPs that we have work better and safer? (A few ideas: signs!!!!! Enough room for separation of pedestrians from those on wheels)

[dasgeh]

@DaveK 22117 wrote:

As much as I’d like to agree with you, this just isn’t so. Look at NYC’s example – the Prospect Park West bike lane required removing a travel lane to put in. NYC DOT did studies showing that not only did vehicle speeds decrease on the adjacent roadway, improving safety for all parties, but travel time through the corridor for vehicles remained unchanged before and after. And cyclist volume went up by a huge percentage. Win-win, right? Wrong. The city will be sued over the installation by nearby residents who have a whole host of objections. And that’s just one example.

My understanding of the conflict over Prospect Park West is that a small but vocal minority is still upset about the bike lanes, and that most users are fine with it, many even favor it. It only takes one plaintiff to sue, and having one plaintiff sue doesn’t mean that plaintiff actually has a case. I also understand that their case is mainly administrative – i.e. about the process involved in getting the bike lanes installed.
What’s interesting about political action is that you usually have vocal minorities either pro, con or both. We have our organized, vocal minority of bike advocates. Particular projects usually garner a vocal minority of opponents who are directly affected (e.g. their street is being painted green or losing parking spaces). I think it’s the job of elected officials to balance the concerns of these minorities and see through to the greater good. I’ve generally been impressed by the ability of the elected officials and county staff in Arlington to do so, especially as it relates to biking (though not always). DaveK is right that the real test of that will come as there are more “losers”, but I’m optimistic.

[dasgeh]

So I’m late to the party here and have lots of comments. I’ll divide them into a couple posts.
It does seem like there is one point of agreement here: optimally, cyclists should be segregated from pedestrians (at least for “through”) trips. Sounds like we’re going to get that at Gravelly Point (YAY) and hopefully that example will encourage more of that along the MVT. Maybe if we can widen local trails and sidewalks, we can put in markings to indicate the “ped” areas and the “moving” areas. (I hesitate to ban our local eliptigo)
As far as the mixing of bikes and cars, I agree with Mark B. here that either “purist” answer doesn’t fit with the realities of our situation. There are streets where it makes sense to have bikes and cars ride together (e.g. most neighborhood streets). There are streets where bike lanes will do (though with my increased experience with Lee Hwy in Cherrydale, I’m beginning to doubt where). And there are streets where only a separate trail/cycletrack will work.
As to gaining acceptance with motorists, I think that once the “rules of the road” are better established and communicated, and there are more people on bikes obeying them, drivers will get it. Hopefully signs and pavement markings will be part of the plan. But drivers understand that the rules vary with the type of road – e.g. it’s fine to make left turns through cut outs on divided streets, but not through the cut outs on interstates. They’ll get used to the idea that bikes ride in bike lanes in some places and not in others. And we should listen to their feedback as to the best way to communicate to them (and in some cases in road design).
Another example to think about: in places where we have bike lanes along side 4+ lane roads, does it really make sense to expect bikes to cross 2+ lanes of traffic to turn left? Or should we have bike waiting areas at lights, so that bikes are expected to cross through the intersection in the bike lane of the road they’re on, then wait in the bike box for the other direction to have green, and proceed forward with that green? Again, my experience biking on Lee Hwy between Quincy and Spout Run makes me think the latter would work better in some cases.

[dasgeh]

I think debating the primary purpose of any or all MUPs is a red herring. The better questions are: what are the current rules of the MUP? Do users know the rules? Do they obey the rules? Are those rules appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are they appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used? Similarly, are the design and condition of the trail appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are the design and condition appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used?

From what I understand (I could be wrong here, because I don’t know the area well), the rules and expectations of trails users are not well publicized on this MUP, and the condition may not be appropriate (too narrow, steep grades, poor sight lines). You can’t prevent every accident and it’s possible that this could have happened on even the most Copenhaganized trail, but looking at the trail through these lenses may prevent another tragedy.

[Author]

Posts