[lordofthemark]

@mstone 62658 wrote:

What is “it”?

“I think you’re ignoring that most people can’t afford to live closer in, “

“it” is living closer in ” (IE closer to destinations). I am sorry I was not more clear.

[lordofthemark]

to relate this back to the topic of the thread, why can they afford it in the NL, where IIUC average household income is no higher than here?

[lordofthemark]

@NicDiesel 62623 wrote:

A stronger argument would be “affordable” housing in the suburbs and, in places like DC and Los Angeles and Chicago, the exurbs.

part of the reason housing in walkable, bikeable urban places is so costly (recently, anyway) , is because we have not built enough such places – we have built places designed for autos, even relatively close in, and we have built too little transit – which in turn is due in part to the role of the automobile.

[lordofthemark]

I thought the video was pretty reasonable. He acknowledged the impact of safety and infra on US biking culture. True, he didn’t mention our urban layout – but there’s a bit of a “vicious cycle” there, isn’t there? (pardon to those who think its not vicious, and also for the pun) Part of the reason (in addition to history) we have such high average distances between our origins and destinations is BECAUSE our society is so built around the automobile. Getting to a more Dutch style biking culture (and a stronger reliance on walking I might add) involves not only infra, or traffic enforcement, but changing how we build our cities. Fortunately that’s been recognized in the planning and architecture fields in the last 20 years, has influenced many local govts in the last 15 years or so, and has even influenced Federal policy in the last 5 years.

[lordofthemark]

@napes 62586 wrote:

At least two bicyclists were there, lordofthemark and napes, and we had enough time to speak. It was an interesting discussion and process. The question of traffic calming in the form of speed humps will next go to the selected Old Columbia Pike area residents for their decision. If enough households approve, it will eventually happen. If too many disapprove or they don’t get enough ballots back, the issue will have to wait two years before it can be addressed again. At least there is nothing in the wind about raising speed limits from (a frequently ignored) 25 mph. There is also a possible effort to get the existing side path extended a few hundred more feet, which would greatly improve that path’s usefulness.

Well, there WERE some folks (cut through car commuters I think) who made a point of questioning the rationale for the 25MPH limit (though they then acknowledged that that was not on the table) including one gentleman who suggested that no one should walk on Old Columbia Pike. Which got me rather ticked off, I might say. Please remind me to have a cup of herbal tea before attending another one of these.

But on the positive side (aside from it looking like there is a good chance of the speed humps going forward, and the community wanting a side path, and even some acknowledgement that Annandale must change) napes let me try out his electric assist bike. It was REALLY cool. Thanks.

Plus since I had come to the meeting by car, I rode his bike in business pants and shirt, and tie. Helmet less. And naturally his bike had not only fenders and rac, but saddle bags with a bit of weight in them. I felt positively Dutch.

[lordofthemark]

@napes 62503 wrote:

Fairfax County is considering installing speed humps on Old Columbia Pike between Little River Turnpike and the intersection at Lincolnia Road and Columbia Pike. Old Columbia Pike is a narrow road with a 25 mph speed limit and is a route used by some eastbound cyclists to reach the Lincolnia/Columbia Pike intersection. With the new traffic calming measures, it should become a better bike route. From the intersection of Lincolnia Road there are sidepaths and secondary roads that support reasonable bicycle connectivity to the Bailey’s Crossroads area, and there are also reasonably bicycle-friendly routes to parallel Columbia Pike to reach the Pentagon area from the Bailey’s Crossroads area.

At 7:30pm on Thursday 29 August 2013 there will be a public hearing on the topic at the Mason District Governmental Center.

There is no sidewalk or side path on most of the road presently. While the best solution for pedestrians and some bicyclists would probably be an extension of the existing short side path (removing a number of trees, by the way), speed humps may be the easiest short-term solution to slow down traffic and make the road somewhat safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. The public meeting may have a vocal presence of drivers who use that road as a cut-through and who will instead want no speed humps and the speed raised from the present (and routinely ignored) 25 mph limit.

http://annandale.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/annandale-residents-ask-for-traffic-calming-measures-on-old-columbia-pike

http://annandaleva.blogspot.com/2013/08/speed-humps-proposed-for-old-columbia.html

will folks from outside the ballot area be able to speak (such as folks from the hummer road section of annandale?) Is there a FABB position to support the speed bumps (I personally prefer a multiuse path on a road like that – but I bike kinda slowly)

[lordofthemark]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/route_7_widening_-_reston_ave_to_dtr.asp

apparently the VDOT plan is for a 10ft wide shared use path only.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 62236 wrote:

It’s possible that gravity will suddenly reverse itself, or that a bag of money will appear in my lap. It’s also extremely unlikely. Getting bike lanes out of a widening project on 7 is similarly unlikely. I’d love to see it, I just don’t believe the political will exists to do it. (Doing so would mean obtaining additional ROW and funding, and if you listen to the people controlling the commonwealth’s big money pots, they just aren’t interested in anything but new highways.)

Edit to add: I’m sure there will be some talk of bike facilities in the early discussions, but they’ll do the usual disappearing act by the time the final design is done, with the “too expensive” reason given (in a multi-hundred-million dollar project).

I know there is talk of making the new lane HOV. I think some of the money for this would be from the Tysons Tax District, which I believe is not controlled by the Commonwealth. It could also be placed on the list of projects to be funded by the new NoVa tax (assuming that holds up in court) where Fairfax County holds a bit of sway.

If anything, VDOT is leaning the other way, toward ripping out service roads when needed to install additional through lanes. They definitely don’t seem interested in creating new ones. And where service lanes don’t exist, there’s usually some reason (i.e., something in the ROW) which makes it hard to put a bike lane there.

I know on Little River Tpke the service lanes are disconnected, and in a few places it would be possible to connect them – it was never done because LRT was widened incrementally with little if any real planning (at least back in the days when service roads in neighborhood commercial centers were in fashion). My understanding is that the Annandale Transportation plan involves removal of the service lanes, but not all the room made available would go to widening LRT further.

I am less familiar with the service lanes on Rte 50.

When I have a chance, I will consult the FFX county bike plan (of course that plan has not yet been approved)

[lordofthemark]

Rte 7 west of tysons is getting a study to look at road widening – the Great Falls folks really want that to decrease cut through traffic to Tysons on Great Falls road, IIUC. Its possible that bike lanes would be part of that project.

Rte 50 not sure which parts they mean – there are lots of service lanes which are currently useable by cyclists, but don’t all connect. AFAICT service lanes on arterials are out of fashion. Not sure if they would use them to create complete streets. Or if they would or could link them up with bike trails.

[lordofthemark]

I’m confused. Personally my biggest issues are on hills – I would love something that gave me a power boost on the hills but was so light it didn’t effect the rest of my ride (lets not discuss gearing right now). Sounds though like due to weight, these don’t help on hills – but mainly make it easier to keep going at moderate speeds on flats for longer than some folks would otherwise be capable of?

That could get more folks on bikes, and that would be a GOOD THING, I guess. But it seems like the number of places it would really work well would be limited. (note I’m not even considering getting one because of A. Cost and B. don’t want to be tempted to not keep improving my endurance

[lordofthemark]

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?5467-Biking-is-SAFEST&p=59101#post59101

short answer – safer per hour, less safe per mile. Ergo any given “average” trip safer by car, a bike focused lifestyle with short bike trips instead of long car trips would eb safer. Sounds like your friend doesn’t really want to do that trip.

Do they bike regularly now?

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 62081 wrote:

Is a shed an option? What about some sort of furniture on the porch to mask/cover/protect it? Personally, I think it’ll be fine, especially if it means n+1

to clarify

A. any new bike (or good used bike) will get the inside space. The outside space will go to the old bike – Roadmaster MTB – IE an old department store MTB that I estimate is worth maybe $50 on CL, if that.

B. some of my neighbors have been keeping similar bikes outside, and they are still there. This is the suburbs (though OTOH, its Annandale)

C. Thinking about it, I would probably keep the bike in the back, where it won’t be that visiable. No one has stolen my rusty manual lawn mower.

D. We will not be putting a shed back there. There is no porch. Could put some kind of tarp over it, I guess.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 62016 wrote:

4) A rational bike connection between Maine Ave and Water St

from the FAQ for the Wharf development

How are potential bicycle and pedestrian conflicts on Maine Avenue going to be managed?
The bicycle path along Maine Avenue will be separated from the primary pedestrian sidewalk by a low-impact development (LID) planting zone or café zone. Potential crossing points are highlighted and designed to the highest safety standards to protect both pedestrians and cyclists.

[lordofthemark]

You basically took the alternative (in DC) to my commute (which I’ve done thrice so far) I do Water street (the fish market is quiet friday AM, and not always THAT bad friday PM and if it is I take the sidewalk – Maine Ave on weekdays does not appeal to me) and then I head east on the Eye Street bike lane – since Eye is in miserable shape I’ve been thinking of doing to the riverwalk to to P to Potomac and then N street instead.

[lordofthemark]

third time, its starting to get easier. The ride over the Connector Road bridge (over rte 110) seemed easier than previous occasions. As did the Humpback bridge. Total time still not great – Pentagon to USDOT in 49 minutes (last time was 50 or 51 minutes). Thats including the 3 minutes to get from one end of the Pentagon Bus station to the other, and excluding crossing M Street SE. I also wimped out and walked my bike across the crosswalk from the Jefferson side of East Basin to the Water Street side – which probably cost me a little time.

I probably need to up this to weekly (from once every two weeks) to really get better.

Several construction issues on the route. Construction on Boundary Channel by the Pentagon River entrance not only eliminates the sidewalk as an option but cuts into the road, making that part even more uncomfortable. Construction by the old Tennis stadium on the Waterfront is NO problem as it creates a de facto cycle track. The construction in SW Eye street by 7th is now completed. There is construction on the sharrows part of the route, near 2nd st SW. I might look into an alternative.

[Author]

Posts