[dbb]

Not sure the County had much leverage at the transfer. As I understand it, Congress gave the DOD the power to condemn the land. The earlier agreement was then abandoned as DOD had more freedom with condemnation.

[dbb]

@dasgeh 198730 wrote:

The Columbia Pike was a HUGE lift that involved convincing the DoD to include the cycletrack in the project. It’s different tradeoffs than reallocating space from parking, but it took serious leadership to get the cycletrack in the plans. It was not easy. (Also, fun fact: It’s not Arlington’s money. DoD is building as compensation for taking VDOT’s land.)

That is true. It went from a point of a blended bike/ped path to separate paths. That is great. I suppose the frustration is how hard the bike community had to push to make that happen. In a Bike Friendly Community, why wasn’t the government doing the pushing before the cycling community had even heard of the project?

@dasgeh 198730 wrote:

I think the structure of the Bike Element works: Vague goals that translate to specific action items and clear performance targets. And it makes sense to draft it from the broader to the more specific. I wouldn’t expect Arlington to *ensure* safety for everyone. “Plan for” or “design for” or something else sure, but not “ensure”

So when do you think the concrete should happen? Unless the requirements are unequivocal, the easy path is to round the corners. The staff is busy and the builders want to go fast. We miss the opportunity to inject the requirements early, when they are easiest to incorporate. That often makes a program level policy turn into project level fights. The challenge with fighting at the project level is it takes more attention by the bike community and cyclists are against the “the project is too far along to change”.

[dbb]

Some additional thoughts. I just sent these to FHWA. Feel free to crib.

Why is there a different speed limit for the two directions on South Joyce? The drawings show the stretch of Joyce heading towards Columbia Pike as having a speed limit of 35 mph and the opposite direction having a speed limit of 25 mph. Please reconsider the suggested speed limits, given Columbia Pike is shown as 25 mph. Having a portion of Joyce at 35 mph will encourage speeding on Columbia Pike.

The side paths on the north side of Columbia Pike have a 8 foot sidewalk and a 10 foot cycletrack. At the intersection of Columbia Pike and Joyce, the 18 feet of side paths (8 and 10 feet) become a single 10 foot path on the east side of Joyce. Because this east side path is likely to pick up the bulk of the bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the north side of Columbia Pike, there is a strong chance the “necking down” of the paths will induce conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. Please take a look at the accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists along Joyce.

[dbb]

That’s weird. One of the drawings (dwg 61) shows 35 mph northbound on Joyce and another (dwg 67) shows 25 mph southbound. Given the rather short run of Joyce, that seems strange. Columbia Pike shows 25 mph.

The comment period is open and operators are standing by. Please let both FHWA and Arlington know your thoughts.

[dbb]

See the attached two drawings. Looks like 10 foot combined sidewalk/path on each side.

Might have to amend my comments to FHWA

[ATTACH]21283[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]21281[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]21282[/ATTACH]

Note the two left turn lanes from Joyce to Columbia Pike and the slip lane from Columbia Pike onto Joyce

[dbb]

@zsionakides 198664 wrote:

Joyce St under 395 between Army Navy and Columbia Pike doesn’t have a PBL or trail. There’s a wide side path for about half the length, but the rest is beat up sidewalks or riding in very high speed traffic. That part of Joyce should be road dieted with the low traffic volumes and high speeds, but I wouldn’t count on that, particularly if DOD has a say in the matter.

Please let them know. That part of Columbia Pike and Joyce is currently under design. Info is at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/va/vastanc-1/ and the comment period is open till 26 Feb. Comment form is at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/va/vastanc-1/documents/ANC-DAR-Public-Hearing-Comment-Sheet.pdf

I had four comments, including the intersection of Joyce and Columbia Pike. Feel free to crib my comments. JBMHH is Joint Base Myer and Henderson Hall.

Signal Timing at Columbia Pike and Joyce

Because the cycle path and sidewalk will be on the north side of Columbia Pike, the intersection of Columbia Pike and Joyce will present safety risks for cyclists and pedestrians. Because of the decision to favor traffic from Joyce to westbound CP, the design shows the sole crosswalk across CP on the east side of the intersection. Using that crosswalk will require stopping traffic heading eastbound from Joyce as traffic on CP. A green left turning phase for Joyce simultaneously with a right turning prohibition will be necessary. This will prevent right turns at speed from Joyce which will jeopardize individuals in the crosswalk.

While the plan suggests the newly constructed Nash Street will support traffic in and out of JBMHH, what provisions will be implemented to prevent vehicles to and from the base from using Orme (or another residential street)? Consideration is necessary as it is likely motorists will use any street they see as convenient.

Will there be a staging area just outside the gate to JBMHH on Southgate for taxis, TNC vehicles, and dockless bikes and scooters? Given the limits on base access, designing and constructing such a staging area will reduce the impact on both base access and the surrounding community.

Please confirm the requirement for a continuous run of sidewalk up the Columbia Pike grade. The sidewalk will have about 1200 feet of uninterrupted 6% grade. That seems to be inconsistent with the intent of the ADA and with FHWA goals. Please see https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada/ada_sect504qa.cfm#q3 For pedestrians not using the parking lot at the Air Force Memorial, this will be an access barrier.

[dbb]

@chris_s 198634 wrote:

Gotta disagree here. Goals should be concrete and we should strive to meet them.

I agree with Chris. If we have concrete goals, it is at least easier to judge whether we achieved them. If we strive to have a fine bike lane (for example), we are likely to have to argue why a white stripe doesn’t count. Every. Damned. Time.

[dbb]

@zsionakides 198622 wrote:

There’s a common perception that many of the bike lanes are largely used for recreational riding by the lycra crowd, vice transportation. This is going to happen where there are gaps in the network or the lanes are unsafe (e.g. door lane zone or a lot of mixing at intersections). If you look at the bike counter data on unprotected bike lanes, most all of them are extremely low, and barely justify their existance.

While the data used to make this graphic is old (and the data portal is currently down for maintenance – whats up with that?), you can see the rush hour on the Mount Vernon Trail. I’d expect the big trails would show more recreational riders as they are, IMO, likely to be less experienced and comfortable on regular bike lanes.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21267[/ATTACH]

[dbb]

I may have channeled my inner yoda with a response like “do or not, there is no strive”

[dbb]

Because nothing is considered accomplished until it goes on a list where there is a potential for funding in the next decade or so.

When the county comes to the realization that some things have to be done now, we will have better infrastructure. Putting bridges that are a safety issue in the CIP (if that is the plan) seems to be just kicking the can down the road. The phrase “an action passed is an action taken” just isn’t really true.

With respect to the five ton limit, I challenge anybody to sit in the Exxon parking lot for 10 minutes and count the number of trucks that likely exceed that size.

[dbb]

@arlcxrider 197620 wrote:

They’re required to hire the lowest bid qualified contractor. And in many of these cases, deficiencies or ambiguities (“errors and omissions”) in the contract documents lead to problems, in other words the owner doesn’t have clean hands either. Of course Metro is not going to admit that, especially if there are pending claims and counter-claims.

But the contracting officers often lack the stones to assess a contractor to be unqualified at the proposal stage. The contracting officers I’ve worked with seem to fear a challenge more than anything else, including the zombie apocalypse. Because they are sitting in the catbird’s seat, they often are successful in wearing down the actual customers (folks like me) by asking for documentation that tends to eliminate any expertise (and interpretation) of the technical experts reviewing the proposals.

Combined with the newfound fondness for fixed price contracts (which like fixed gear bikes, have a limited role), we demonstrate that you can put a square peg in a round hole if you accept damage to the peg.

[dbb]

@reji 197042 wrote:

I’ll remain on high alert so I can keep dodging those nasty cement trucks.

Striving to be pedantic, they are actually concrete trucks.

[dbb]

I had a Hornit on my commuter.

https://www.amazon.com/Hornit-dB140-Bike-Headlight-Cyclists/dp/B07G9Q7BFK

Worked pretty well but it failed in under six months.

[dbb]

If the non-selected vendors remain in the metro area, I’d expect a pile of the scooters at the point on the MVT (and other trails) where the geo-fence is. Presuming the units just stop working so the riders will get off and abandon the scooter. How do you suppose they will handle Columbia Island, where a scooter could be expected to transit through DC without ever crossing the river.

[dbb]

@jrenaut 194609 wrote:

This is why we don’t have a Slackers team anymore.

We always thought it was the indignity of having a bunch of slackers beating the actual competitors. Just say’n.

[Author]

Posts