[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 194166 wrote:

How dare you be so succinct, sir. One paragraph, no parentheticals? That is not our way.

I’m sorry. I look forward to the time when a listing of suburban arterials with high speed limits in our region can be done in one or two sentences.

[lordofthemark]

What would we do without internet search engines?

https://www.callahan-law.com/blog/2018/08/do-more-fatal-bike-crashes-happen-on-rural-or-urban-roads.shtml

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has published helpful data on fatal bicycle accidents that occur across the country. According to the NHTSA, data from 2010 to 2015 shows that a majority of bicyclist fatalities occurred on urban roads, as opposed to rural roadways. During this period, 69.6 percent of bicyclist fatalities were in an urban environment, while 30.4 percent were in rural areas.”

[lordofthemark]

@Brendan von Buckingham 194129 wrote:

Rural or ubran roads? Rural roads will have speed limits over 45. Urban raods will have speed limits at 25. The latter is much more survivable. All the people I know who were hit from behind were hit on rural roads. One died. One barely survived.

Hmmm.

The District of Columbia, is, just now, in 2019, about to pass a law to make 25MPH the default speed on arterials. And I believe there will be exceptions to that.

Here in the City of Alexandria, which is hardly rural, we have a handful of segments of arterials that are posted at 25MPH. King from the metro to TCW (King east of the metro is not an arterial for these purposes) parts of Quaker, Seminary, and Richmond Highway. Changing each of them except Richmond Highway was a battle, and there are still people who begrudge the lower speed limits – and people who are outraged at the changes in street design on King and Seminary to get them to function like 25MPH roads (IE people only driving about 30MPH, instead of up to 40MPH and beyond). There continue to be many arterials that are signed at 35MPH – I won’t even talk about ones I don’t go near that much, like Duke, but within walking distance of where I live there is upper King (which I ride on most days, heart in my mouth), Braddock, and Beauregard. At least on upper King and on Beauregard there are plans for a wide shared use path, which would provide a low stress bike route, but I guess that’s a failure from the Forrester POV.

That’s Alexandria. Arlington, though in many respects more progressive than Alexandria, is worse as far as speed limits, I think. Again, right near me, is Walter Reed – speed limit on the part near me is I think 30MPH? But there are worse all over Arlington. Plenty of arterials at 35MPH.

Did I say that Arlington is worse than Alexandria in terms of having roads with speed limits over 25MPH? Pardon, Arlington is much better than Fairfax County, where it seems you can’t turn around without seeing a road signed at 45MPH. As if drivers on those actually never drove faster than that.

But you say, in an urban area you can avoid the arterials by riding on a nice slow parallel? In this region you can do that in DC (though giving up the state avenues will mean going out of your way) In NoVa, you can do that basically in Old Town Alex, in Del Ray, in a few of the oldest parts of Arlington, and in City of Falls Church. Trying doing that in Fairfax or in West Alexandria (or even in much of Arlington and East Alexandria) you will learn what a cul de sac is.

Oh, and I forget to mention that even 25MPH (as if people actually drove at 25MPH on streets posted at 25MPH) is fast, compared to many common intersection speeds, if its someone going/turning from a dead stop, or similar.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 194119 wrote:

I guess the people who didn’t feel safe with cars whizzing past were right, Forester notwithstanding?

I did find it interesting that their data has multiple categories for “cyclist failed to yield” but none at all for “motorist failed to yield”. I guess motorists always follow the rules.

To be fair, didn’t Forrester say leading cause of cyclist crashes or injuries, not fatalities? From what I can gather (including by personal experience) collisions at intersections tend to be at lower speed (while hit by overtakers would be at higher speed) . While the former could still be fatal (esp with a very heavy vehicle like a truck) they are generally less serious.

[lordofthemark]

It seems it was actually the Popeye’s and the issue was the chicken sandwiches.

If any developer wants to buy that parcel and get rid of the drive through, I volunteer to go to the Council and testify on behalf of any zoning variance to redevelop.

[lordofthemark]

This evening I headed to NoVa CC arts building to vote. Don’t usually go that way from the trail network, esp after dark. Headed up Lucky Run Trail by Walter Reed. Contemplated taking Beauregard, but crossing from the corner seemed well nigh impossible and pulling out in front of the traffic in the right through lane looked scary. So I decided to head up Rte 7 to Dawes. Tried the sidewalk. Blocked atvthe Wendy’s drive through. I maneuvered around the SUV blocking the sidewalk, muttering “this actually IS a sidewalk”. Driver “and you’re on a bike” “You expect me to ride with THEM” indicating the heavy traffic racing to FFX cty. “I have to get in” (orcwords to that effect” “Just leave a gap of a few feet for the sidewalk” “And push the car behind me into traffic?” “It’s too late now ” Well thanks for teaching me how to drive” (sarcastically). “Yes I’ve been driving since 1980, I know how to drive”

I eventually did enter Rte 7 briefly to make the turn onto Dawes.

[lordofthemark]

Last night there was a public meeting on the Bridge EIS. Having been informed by Judd Lumberjack of the meeting, and it being on my way home, I attended, and spoke in favor of the preferred alternative including the bike/ped bridge as mitigation. I got there relatively late, so not sure if anyone I knew spoke earlier, I did see Zach D (forum handle?) there. Stewart Schwartz of CSG spoke just before me. I don’t think ANYONE spoke against the bike ped bridge, and I think because its mitigation its clear it will happen IF and WHEN the RR bridge is done (AFAIK still no funding). I did ask someone from the project team if NPS will own the bike-ped bridge or DDOT – they did not know. Of course now NPS ownership would not necessarily be more restrictive of ebike usage than DC law.

There ARE some concerns remaining. I think there is some question about the width of the bike-ped bridge – planned for 14 feet, but its been suggested it could (and should) be wider for modest added cost. The turn onto the bridge from the ramp from the MVT appeared in the plans shown to be a tight 90 degree corner – difficult for many and particularly a problem for long tails, trailers, etc.

[lordofthemark]

Wasn’t that a door zone bike lane, that sort of disappeared at 26th? I mean I confess to usually taking it, but definitely lost VC points for doing so. The new SB bike lane is not door zone?

[lordofthemark]

I was speaking to a woman at my synagogue who is an occasional bike rider. She used to bike commute downtown before her job location changed, but recently rode in on a weekday to meetings. She reported that it felt much more comfortable for her than it had been a few years ago, because it seemed the presence of all the scooters made drivers more cautious “tilted the balance”.

I don’t ride downtown on weekdays much myself, and don’t know of any data, but this seems significant to me.

[lordofthemark]

https://chi.streetsblog.org/2019/10/03/a-dinosaur-still-roams-the-earth-john-forester-discusses-his-discredited-anti-bike-lane-credo/

[lordofthemark]

@LeprosyStudyGroup 193555 wrote:

I may be doing something like this for a bit next year: google map link on MD 414

It looks like trying to ride a bike through the worst sections of Glebe Rd but it’d be three times longer

Other less direct routes through the city seem like they could easily double the mileage and there aren’t good alternatives but I haven’t biked in the area much… any advice?

This is why my nightmare is “we should consolidate ALL the statistical agencies at Suitland”

[lordofthemark]

I guess in theory if someone walks out in all black, on a white striped crosswalk, a driver should notice that something is obscuring the crosswalk stripes. If not there is an issue with the driver, with the crosswalk, or both.

Of course there are implicit crosswalks where it is legal to cross, but there is no striping. That presents a problem.

[lordofthemark]

Yesterday I was riding a CaBi in this area. I rode WB through the retail area, then bak EB all the way to the CaBi station near George Mason.

Note – going WB, I did not notice the sharrows (may have been preoccupied), and rode closer to the parking. I bet quite a few people do that. Hmmm.

EB in the bike lanes, at about the time Swanson lets out. Another rider (a youngster) was going WB in the EB lane. I am not sure why. Maybe he didn’t want to deal with the section by the angle parking where there is no bike lane. Or maybe he had a destination on the south side of Washington, and found crossing Washington intimidating. He did NOT take the Custis, obviously. Hmmm.

OTOH, the number of kids riding bikes from Swanson was heartening.

[lordofthemark]

14. Cyclists are a tiny minority who exercise vastly disproportionate influence due to nefarious ties to politicians, probably greased by money. A Elected officials support Complete Streets because of the multiple benefits, and because of support from a diverse set of supporters (and no, bike advocates did not in fact kill Jesus)

[lordofthemark]

@komorebi 193178 wrote:

Thanks for creating this thread, lordofthemark. I’m happy to go first.

If you were going to be on a panel to discuss “Complete Streets or War on Cars?” with John Townsend of AAA — yes, that John Townsend — what points would you expect him to raise, and how would you respond to those points?

1. Not everyone can bike – cars are here to stay. Answer = Complete streets can make driving safer and more comfortable for law abiding drivers, and also is a big benefit to walkers and transit users.

2. Its not realistic to eliminate all accidents. VZ makes no sense.A. The idea of Vision zero is to take a systems approach, and thereby dramatically reduce deaths and serious injuries

3. Complete Streets leads to gentrification. A- IF CS leads to higher rents (unproven) then it shows its a benefit to communities. We need safe streets everywhere, so its not an amenity only for the wealthy.

4. Bikers are affluent yuppies/hipsters A. Complete streets benefits walkers as well as people on bikes. People on bikes are often working class people though they too often disappear in these discussions. The way to get a wider range of ages, and more women riding is to make it safer

5.Bikers are a bigger thread to peds than cars A. While WABA and BPAC support safer more polite riding, in fact cars are a greater threat due to speed and mass. Many more ped fatalities due to cars.

6. All these policies are part of a larger war on cars, including tolls A- People do not all agree on tolls. You can support CS for safety even if you don’t support tolling. Tolling is introduced for other reasons relating to reducing congestion and highway finace – CS supporters are on both sides of that debate.

7 We need parking. A- Yes, but we must balance on street parking with other needs, including encouraging walking and biking which reduce demand for parking spaces (and where on street parking is not priced, that can lead to excessive demand for it)

8. Congestion is terrible. A- CS usually creates far less traffic delay than feared by opponents, sometimes none at all. The real way to fight congestion is to encourage other modes, and housing closer to jobs

9. Crazy to reduce lanes with all this growth coming A. MWCOG shows growth does not lead to much more VMT when we provide alternatives. North Arlington a case in point.

10. If people fear global warming, electric cars will solve it A. Complete Streets is about safety first and foremost. But for climate change, its uncertain if EV adoption will be fast enough to solve the problem. We can encourage more EVs and ALSO more transportation alternatives.

11. Automated vehicles will solve safety A. AVs continue to have major issues dealing with pedestrians. Plus pace of adoption very uncertain.

Next two likely from Sullivan, not Townsend

12. You don’t need CS, just more police enforcement. See rte 7 in Falls Church. A. The Falls Church PD has said they can do that because Rte 7 is what they use to go anywhere, so they can have an unusually large presence there. Some in Falls Church say that police presence on Rte 7 means too little police presence on other roads.

13. Automated Traffic Enforcement will solve it A. There are limits on ATE, especially in Va. But even in DC ATE cannot solve all street safety problems.

[Author]

Posts