[lordofthemark]

@arlrider 220925 wrote:

I think this is our fundamental disagreement. My personal empirically-driven belief is that when “bike” infrastructure that is opened up to vehicles that weigh significantly more than traditional bicycles and which can move under their own power, it is basically nullified because that defeats the purpose of bike infrastructure…having a separation between bike, heavy things that can move under their own power and…bicycles.

For me the purpose of bike infrastructure is to separate me from 2 to 3 ton vehicles that can move at 100MPH (and which routinely do 45 in 35MPH zones). And kill me. And have killed (if not any friends thank God) friends of friends. And have sent friends to the hospital.

I do not ride the Custis Trail that often. I ride the MVT, the 4MRT (from the MVT to Shirlington) and the W&OD a great deal. And PBLs in DC, and also paint only bike lanes around the region. I have noticed more ebikes. I generally have not noticed particularly bad behavior from them. Perhaps this is a North Arlington thing?

[lordofthemark]

Yes, you are misreading me. I think I have been pretty clear. I am a fan of dedicated infrastructure for human-powered vehicles. Not building that infrastructure then allowing motor vehicles onto it. My position, as strange as you seem to find it, is exactly consistent with the original *point* of having MUPs and bike / ped infrastructure…to protect from motor vehicles through separation.

My point was that no citizens are saying “do not build seg infra, because ebikes exist” If you are not opposing the existence of seg infra, than your existence does not contradict my claim that no one is opposing seg infra on account of ebikes.

Or because, as you have noted in your own post, funding is tied to user count…

I said that user count helps justify better infra. I did not say that agencies like NPS or NVRPA get more funding with more users. They do not.

My lived experience as a cyclist is that the world has gotten more dangerous since motorized vehicles (to the guy referencing legal definitions – I’m talking the laws of physics, not the laws on the books), have started to occupy the spaces previously designed and built to protect human powered transit users from motor vehicles. This isn’t to say that humans can’t be dangerous – of course a rider going flat-out on a traditional bike can cause plenty of damage – I’m simply noting that incremental risk has been introduced. We can all have one issue or another that makes us cranky, for me as a cyclist, this is mine.

We can have our own crankiness, but not our own facts. Fact is that more ebikes means fewer cars, more citizens who will support better bike infra and bike policy, more justification for bike infra (especially in street, but ALSO more and wider trails) In general it will help with the things that not only make many of us cranky, but also kill us (and endanger the planet) As for your lived experience mine is not similar.

Also, PS, you can copy / paste quote blocks as I have done if you want to respond to multiple points a user has made. Makes the response a lot easier to follow.

And violate my personal tradition?

[lordofthemark]

@arlrider 220866 wrote:

Telling me that I am “bad” (opposite of “better”) because I don’t agree with your position is not a valid form of discourse either, and I am not seeking your “sympathy”.

…..

We can agree to disagree. You can call me names and claim I’m not contributing. And I will go for a ride, as you suggest – I’ll just unfortunately have to keep one eye on my six for the next huge rig roaring up on me at automobile speed going uphill, distracted rider at the helm ready to mow me down.

Dude. You called me a motorcycle user. I have never ridden a motorcycle. I have probably not ridden more than 10 miles on an ebike, ever, and never on a trail (I have ridden 4700 miles on acoustic bikes this calendar year)

Can’t say I am surprised by the self-justifying responses from the motorcycle users as to why their cases are special and how they are model citizens…

[lordofthemark]

@arlrider 220866 wrote:

My comments are reflective of reality. That reality is that 1) this thread is about someone being outraged over use of a motor vehicle on a trail, 2) yet that outrage is based off a false dichotomy between different types of motor vehicles, and that 3) the introduction of motor vehicles en masse to trails has made them into incrementally more dangerous places.

1. I have already explained why the dichotomy is real. Of course getting “more butts on bikes” improves biking by making biking more visible, by getting more folks (citizens, electeds (including on CM here in ALX) who influence policy into bike riders, and by creating more usage of onstreet infra. But re trails, NPS is looking at improvements to the MVT , and its heavy usage is one of the justifications they have mentioned. (The W&OD in Falls Church has recently been widened) So that would offset any dangers from more ebikes, though quite frankly, as I have stated, the ebike riders I see are as good with trail etiquette as fast riders of regular bikes are.

Telling me that I am “bad” (opposite of “better”) because I don’t agree with your position is not a valid form of discourse either, and I am not seeking your “sympathy”.

“Be better” is not an attempt at discourse on ebikes – it is personal advice. You may take it or dismiss it as you wish.

If you want to engage with me, engage with my actual position, which is that the introduction of a certain type of motor vehicle onto trails previously allowed only for human-powered transit, done under the presence of “green” transportation yet ignoring all pre-existing safety-based reasons why motor vehicles were not allowed, has increased the aggregate risk level of using those trails.

I did. I see evidence that adding class 1 ebikes has increased risk on trails, and I see at as doing lots of other things to improve biking, as well as helping to reduce GHGs, provide a mobility option for people, etc.

Well take a seat, because you just saw a real, live, many-thousands-of-taxes-paying, card-carrying citizen make that argument!

Oh you mean yourself? But you are a bike rider and bike supporter, no? Not an opponent of bike lanes using the speed of ebikes as an excuse? Or am I misreading you.

I don’t disagree that the view above reflects the “short game”. But as these motor vehicles become more and more powerful, there is going to become no distinction between them and other types of motorcycles, other than a pedal system installed as a showpiece. That is going to create lack of rationale for policymakers to advocate for protected lanes. The same people who say “no one bikes” will, in the future, say “Why do motorcycle riders need to be protected? They’ve always ridden on the road.” By breaking down the distinction as to what is and is not a bike, in the long run it is going to erode any support for true bike infrastructure.

Oh, so this is about slippery slopes and hypotheticals. Heck, why not go full NIMBY “if they can do a 4 to 3 road diet, what stops them from banning cars?”

The evolution of these motor vehicles has already accelerated beyond the ability or appetite of regulators to keep up. The trails and streets have become the wild west. Which is why I posit that the traditional position of “no motor vehicles on trails” was the easiest to maintain and enforce.

There’s no appetite for restricting ebikes on trails presumably because the folks at the trail orgs find no urgent problem from ebikes on trails.

We can agree to disagree. You can call me names and claim I’m not contributing. And I will go for a ride, as you suggest – I’ll just unfortunately have to keep one eye on my six for the next huge rig roaring up on me at automobile speed going uphill, distracted rider at the helm ready to mow me down.

When I go for my next ride I will have to keep an eye out for folks on acoustic bikes passing without calling, passing too close, riding at night without lights etc. None of which frighten me a fraction as much as the SUVs going above the speed limit, making crazy u turns, etc in shared infrastructure that is hostile to bike riders and to peds (and often to drivers who want to drive the speed limit and be safe) One less car, works for me.

Again, if you participate in advocacy work that protects bike riders and pedestrians from the things that actually, you know, kill us on a regular basis, I am eager to hear about it.

[lordofthemark]

PS electric motorcycles are NOT net positive for cycling, because by enabling their riders to easily operate at speed parity with other motor vehicles, they obviate the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Do you do real world bike advocacy? I have NEVER heard a staffer, elected, or citizen make that argument – not in Alexandria, not elsewhere in greater DC, and not in the national discourse.

I have heard that “no one bikes” “no one bikes on this particular piece of infra” and “We must maximize space for cars because I can’t get groceries on a bike”

I have also seen a need for more people to be bike advocates, and have seen ebike riders being bike advocates.

As for need – someone on an ebike capped at 28 MPH may be uncomfortable on a road that is signed at 35MPH. Even one that is signed at 25MPH where drivers routinely go well over 30. A fortiori, someone on Class 1 ebike capped at 21MPH. And note, its not necessarily easy to get to those speeds uphill. On a CaBi ebike I couldn’t get close to 21 MPH on one steep grade – I was VERY glad I was in a PBL.

And quite frankly there are folks who CAN keep up with traffic but still don’t feel comfortable without bike infra. Not everyone is comfortable with vehicular cycling, especially on busy (if not fast) roads, or other complexities or dangers.

Given that many e bike adopters are elderly, or parents riding with young children, I can see them need bike infra even more.

[lordofthemark]

@arlrider 220858 wrote:

Can’t say I am surprised by the self-justifying responses from the motorcycle users as to why their cases are special and how they are model citizens….

Dude. I do not own an ebike. I have ridden one a few times to just get a better idea of what they are about. I have ridden one for transportation purposes exactly once, and IIRC that was entirely in street, never on a trail.

I DO have thoughts on how ebikes can contribute, as a class, to our transportation system. I have thoughts about how, as a class, they can and should be regulated, and how that might differ from diesel bikes (and indeed, should differ for different types of ebikes) Your comments are not, IMO, contributing to that discourse, and are not winning sympathy to your position.

Be better. Help make this community better. Go for a bike ride.

[lordofthemark]

In virginia we have three classes of ebike. All allow pedaling. Only class 2s will move without pedaling. class 3’s the assistance cuts out at 28MPH, class 1’s at 20MPH

AFAICT all are lighter than diesel powered bikes.

Noise is a real issue.

Re power sources, on average electricity from Virginia is only 4% from coal, negligible from oil. in 2021 57% was from natural gas, which IS a fossil fuel, but lower GHG impact (even with average methane leaks) than oil. And we get 30% from nuclear (GHG free) and 9% from renewables. So EVs in general are better than gasoline or diesel, as far as GHGs are concerned.

So multiple reasons a diesel bike on the trails is worse than an ebike.

I do wonder if it is feasible to limit to certified class 1 ebikes only (on trails), with some kind of scheme to make it easily visible which ebikes are in which class. Others here are more expert in that subject though.

I do think large scale ebike adoption is good for the environment, and good for biking in the region. I have not followed any discoure on ebike usage on the trails lately. I can say that I see a lot of ebikes, and in general the behavior of ebike riders is not visibly worse than that of riders of acoustic bikes. I do not know if that would stay the same if we had mass adoption of ebikes by delivery people, as happens in NYC.

[lordofthemark]

Class 1 ebikes only on the trails is what I meant

And what happened to the edit button? Did Elon Musk buy this site?

[lordofthemark]

In virginia we have three classes of ebike. All allow pedaling. Only class 2s will move without pedaling. class 3’s the assistance cuts out at 28MPH, class 1’s at 20MPH

AFAICT all are lighter than diesel powered bikes.

Noise is a real issue.

Re power sources, on average electricity from Virginia is only 4% from coal, negligible from oil. in 2021 57% was from natural gas, which IS a fossil fuel, but lower GHG impact (even with average methane leaks) than oil. And we get 30% from nuclear (GHG free) and 9% from renewables. So EVs in general are better than gasoline or diesel, as far as GHGs are concerned.

So multiple reasons a diesel bike on the trails is worse than an ebike.

I do wonder if it is feasible to limit to certified class 1 ebikes only, with some kind of schemer to make it easily visible which ebikes are in which class. Others here are more expert in that subject though.

I do think large scale ebike adoption is good for the environment, and good for biking in the region. I have not followed any discoure on ebike usage on the trails lately. I can say that I see a lot of ebikes, and in general the behavior of ebike riders is not visibly worse than that of riders of acoustic bikes. I do not know if that would stay the same if we had mass adoption of ebikes by delivery people, as happens in NYC.

[lordofthemark]

So, this is really tiny, but it fixes what had been a big annoyance to me over 8 years, at the western end of the Lucky Run Trail, by the Arlington/Alexandria line, near King and Beauregard/WalterReed

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29161[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29162[/ATTACH]

[lordofthemark]

Hi I’m Ken. I am chair of Alexandria BPAC. I am here to inform you that the rules of Freezing Saddles say that IF you live in Alexandria, you are required to attend Alexandria BPAC meetings and/or join BPAC in order to participate.

Just kidding. Well kind of. Whatever.

I have participated in BAFS since 2015. It’s great. Have fun.

[lordofthemark]

Quick summary of several projects in DC and Arlington (not including temporary detours)

Recently opened – DC – Wharfletrack Phase 2. Various PBLs around Kenyon and Warder. Arlington – Short Bridge trail. section of SB PBL on Crystal Drive

About to open – DC. PBLs on North Carolina and C NE, in Capitol Hill. Added routes through the oval at north end of FDM bridge

Almost done – Under construction, close to done – DC – 9th street cycle track. Monroe cycle track

Under construction – early stages or nominal Arlington – Boundary Channel connector. Army Navy Drive Cycle Track

Moving ahead in pipeline – DC – Eye Street SE/SW PBLs. Connecticut Avenue PBLs (?) Arlington – connection from Short Bridge trail to Potomac Avenue

[lordofthemark]

@ChristoB50 220333 wrote:

Oh terrific; thanks for the update! Hadn’t checked in awhile.
Looking forward to trying the connector (albeit, as a more circuitous option, with the other 4MRT closure nearby, vs just crossing Rt 1 at the light; worth it to try out the new infrastructure!)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]29146[/ATTACH]

I rode it this AM. I can’t see many occasions when it would really be a useful route for me. I don’t need to get to the Rte 1 east side sidewalk very much, either north or south of here. Easier ways to get to Potomac Avenue in either direction. It seems mostly useful for people accessing the park itself from the 4MRT. OTOH if and when there is any kind of connection, official or unofficial, through the park to Potomac Avenue (I did not check that out this AM) that could be useful.

[lordofthemark]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29147[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29148[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29149[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29150[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29151[/ATTACH]

[lordofthemark]

Thanks for this event. I only got to try one ebike, too busy tabling. But there were plenty of bikes to try, and plenty of people checking them out. Thanks to Komorebi and Zach for help with the BPAC table and tabling.

[Author]

Posts