[mstone]

@huskerdont 203155 wrote:

The arrows are poorly drawn, but overall, it’s no different from the little traffic islands designed to slow down traffic on places like Key. Motorists complain about those because they have to slow down and be careful, and of course some won’t be careful, but surely we’re better than that?

You’re arguing a strawman in a way that’s frankly insulting to a number of people who have not historically shown signs of arguing facilities on the basis of personal convenience rather than safety. The issue isn’t that people have to slow down, it’s that they have to slow down in a confusing and poorly engineered manner (or not–this doesn’t really stop anyone from flying through). On roads there are standards that have to be met for things like “little traffic islands”, based on lessons learned over time. On trails there are some standards but they’re generally ignored (bollards!) and as far as we can tell, whoever is assigned to the job as a low priority (compared to road projects) basically makes something up based on what they think looks good. Steve O’s proposal above is an example of something that might address the problem more safely–if only the powers that be used the public comment period to actually solicit and react to feedback from users instead of treating it as a waste of time to get past as quickly as possible. But no, they have road projects which sometimes have a trail attached, and you’ll take what they give you, shut up, and say thank you.

[mstone]

@dbb 203035 wrote:

Drop the speed limit on the Parkway to 25 and put speed cameras every 100 yards randomly in the traffic lanes. FIFY

we prefer the term “bollard”

[mstone]

@Sunyata 202876 wrote:

“Improvement” = Paved. 😡

correct: it leads to a much more accessible amenity for the entire community

[mstone]

It’s kinda ridiculous to *not* pave gravel roads if the population and traffic volume keeps increasing, and they’re already building the houses.

[mstone]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21704[/ATTACH]

You: gnatcatcher

Me: on the W&OD near Leesburg

WHERE ARE YOU! There are gnats to catch!

[mstone]

@arlcxrider 202412 wrote:

Sure, but the private contractors claim that the delays (and delay claims) are due to glacially-slow condemnation process, ferocious opposition from deep-pocketed NIMBYs, and seemingly endless litigation. And that can be laid at the feet of “government.”

They can claim anything. The story was that the magic of private industry would fix everything.

[mstone]

I, for one, am amazed that a public-private-partnership didn’t magically make public infrastructure easy because the difficulties are entirely because government is bad and private industry is inherently better at getting things done.

[mstone]

@Judd 202338 wrote:

I wasn’t around for the 70s bike boom but my impression was that riding a bike was slower and more recreation focused and less transportation and exercised focused which may have influenced design choices.

There was definitely a boom in bike commuting also, just not necessarily safe cycling. (Those were the days before seat belts…when you could still hold your baby on your lap in the front seat with a can of beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other…the good old days.)

[mstone]

@ursus 202330 wrote:

There is also one at the other end in Purcellville which is easy not to notice.

it used to be a decorative medallion, I have NFI what happened to that

[mstone]

@consularrider 202314 wrote:

Also plenty of room in the curbside lane of the road.

there are rules about making sure people in cars are safe!

[mstone]

@drevil 202010 wrote:

I’m sad that you didn’t include George Washington and how he invented the Mt Vernon trail so he could bike from home to do laps at Hains Point. Otherwise, I love it man, thank you for doing the research.

“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet” — Abraham Lincoln

[mstone]

@Fairlington124 202003 wrote:

Capacity constraints in term of trail widths, tight corners, etc have become all the more clear.

And don’t even get me started on a “trail” which is basically a 5-foot sidewalk, reduce a bit by puddling water and an uneven surface due to tree roots. A 5-foot sidewalk is borderline adequate for two passing pedestrians, to say nothing of bikers, or reduced widths due to the mentioned hazards.

Even the best trails in the region have issues. Take the W&OD near route 9, where at the best of times it’s ridiculously narrow, squeezed in, with bad sight lines, and now has weeds covering literally one entire lane on a blind turn. If only we could find a little money to improve the trail. Completely unrelated: the new roundabouts & such were part of a $28 million project to add a lane to route 7 for about 2 miles. That’s about the same as NVRPA’s annual budget, which mostly goes into the water parks, etc.; the W&OD’s share averages about $1M/year operating & capital. Ironically the W&OD actually makes about $750k/year from utility easements and similar sources and pays for itself more than any non-toll-road in the region.

[mstone]

@dbb 201993 wrote:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21613[/ATTACH]

Don’t you love the dedication of transportation planners in their efforts to protect individuals in vehicles by their efforts to move poles and posts away from the roadway? This one, on US 1 in Crystal City, is further enhanced by the cheesy workaround to provide an accessible sidewalk.

In the future, please advise motorists to drive in a way that they stay in the roadway and don’t treat sidewalk users as if they are some lesser form of mobility consumer.

The amount of money available to protect motorists who drive off the road is much larger than the amount of money to protect non-motorists from motorists. Why? Standards.

[mstone]

@dbb 201985 wrote:

The culvert was clogged again today. I’ve let the NovaParks folks know, with pictures.

I think most of these low bridges throughout the region just need to be ripped out and replaced with higher clearance bridges. I don’t know if they were badly designed to start with or they’ve just been overwhelmed by the increase in runoff, but they’re chronically troublesome. It certainly seems unlikely that the number of flood events will decrease in the future, so I hope plans on are on the drawing board. If only the money to do so was available. Stormwater tax maybe?

[mstone]

@Judd 201946 wrote:

IIRC the preferred alternative was a separate bridge and that the plan was to construct it after the new rail bridge was built. Since projects often overrun their budgets, having the ped bridge connected to the rail bridge would be a way to mitigate the risk of the ped bridge not being built due to cost overruns.

This. I don’t think anyone thought “wow, a bridge stuck on the side of the rr bridge is the best possible outcome”, they just thought “the chances of getting a bike/ped bridge without making it disappear into a billion dollar car or rail project are really low”.

[Author]

Posts