[scoot]

In addition to the signage, you’d think the position of the stop line would also communicate to drivers that they have to wait for a green to turn right. Perhaps the stop lines should be moved even further back from the intersection? That way, it would be even more obvious (both to trail users and to law enforcement) if a driver were planning to violating the sign.

These intersections along Lee are a large part of why I prefer taking streets rather than Custis Trail in the downhill direction through Rosslyn. Uphill, I usually take the trail. The sightlines (especially at Oak) are better uphill, plus it’s a lot easier to react to bad drivers turning through the intersections when you’re riding slowly.

[scoot]

I agree that northernmost parts of Arlington are pretty nice for riding now, but some changes could make it a lot better and get more people to ride.

Several ideas of widely varying magnitude:

1) How about an uphill protected bike lane on Glebe from Chain Bridge at least to Military / Old Glebe? That would be a much easier ride than 41st.
2) Major engineering project, yes, but GWMP should somehow accommodate bikes/peds for its entire length. North of Rosslyn, I’d love to see a paved MUP southwest of the parkway. It could provide connections to Fort Bennett, Fort Smith, Potomac Overlook Park, N Monroe St, Glebe/41st, etc. A lower elevation path nearer to Potomac Heritage Trail would face more environmental obstacles, and would be less able to serve the nearby communities.
3) A rideable Pimmit Run trail would be nice. Especially if it included spurs that enabled bike/ped connections between neighborhoods on opposite sides
4) Repave the northernmost part of Military Road, which somehow missed out on last year’s repaving. It’s in terrible shape between Gulf Branch and Glebe.

It is a natural consequence of the evolution of our transportation system that the gentlest slopes have become the primary routes for cars. The terrain dictated those as the natural choices for routing before cars even existed. And once cars came along, these routes were widened and often landscaped to ease travel through them. In some cases, such as the W&OD, it was a railroad instead, which then fell into disuse once cars and trucks began to dominate transportation.

[scoot]

@PotomacCyclist 136115 wrote:

@bobco85 136103 wrote:

[edited] “if someone thinks there’s even a remote chance that a car can fit somewhere, someone will eventually drive there.”

edited

The above examples are humorous, but there is also an underlying lesson here for bicyclists to keep in mind. When taking a lane, position yourself so that even THESE drivers realize they can’t squeeze through…

[scoot]

There are a lot of asymmetric intersections along suburban arterial highways with cycle times of 3 minutes.

@lordofthemark 136085 wrote:

The law in Virginia, as understand it, is if you wait two minutes, you (a cyclist) can assume no sensor has sensed you, and you may (carefully) proceed through the light.

It’s absurd to wait two minutes at each such intersection every day in order to confirm that a signal which couldn’t detect bikes yesterday still can’t detect them today. The law should be amended to allow Idaho behavior without a waiting period at any signal known to be defective in this way.

[scoot]

@bobco85 136016 wrote:

Arlington – Rode on South Courthouse Road for the first time in a while and noticed that it has finally been repaved. Not only that, I noticed sharrows between 2nd St S and 6th St S and bike lanes between 6th St S and 8th St S. Well, the northbound bike lanes have been painted, but the southbound lanes currently are in invisible paint (but there is a sign saying “Bike Lane” so it must be there somewhere).

I hope that cyclists using this northbound bike lane are paying attention as they approach the downhill, because the lane ends abruptly at a hard concrete curb at the bottom of the hill. There are dashed lines several feet before the curb, but no “Bike Lane Ends” sign, IIRC. Best advice for anyone riding here is to merge into the traffic lane well before the solid line changes to dashed. Adding a sign and dashing the lines much earlier would help a bit. Actually a curb cut (where the bike lane ends into the sidewalk) might not be a bad idea for safety’s sake. On the other hand, it could also enable high-speed riders to terrorize pedestrians on that sidewalk.

[scoot]

@komorebi 135824 wrote:

snugglefestival, your pointless prize inspired me to make my first attempt at Strava art. Thanks for providing the extra motivation (even if my hamstrings are less than grateful for the extra hills)!

Because riding feels like flying,
https://www.strava.com/activities/504738024

2-28-2016 1-10-46 PM, on Flickr

Glebe and George Mason FTW!

[scoot]

A private driveway should never have right-of-way over a public trail. The stop sign should definitely be removed. If a lot of drivers are not yielding here, it should be replaced with a “Yield to Trail Users” sign facing the driveway.

[scoot]

@CaseyKane50 135408 wrote:

If you or someone you know lives in Alexandria, please encourage them to take the survey.

Must one live in Alexandria to take the survey?

[scoot]

@Tim Kelley 135065 wrote:

Scratching my head how NPS is having a meeting with 20 bike advocates on it’s trail plan, but expects us to get there without riding on the Parkway….

It’s a trap. By choosing a bicycle-inaccessible location, they’re hoping you all show up in cars. Then they plan to throw the “See: a bicycle is recreational, not a serious transportation device, so there is no need to plow the trails” crap in your faces. Don’t fall in!

By the way, the follow-up meeting will be held at the GW Parkway scenic overlook above Donaldson Run.

[scoot]

Right, the Seminary underpass is the spot I thought might be too narrow to fit a MUP. But if that part of Van Dorn could be road-dieted, that would change the equation: there would be no need for a center turn lane anywhere between the Kenmore intersections. Or if two lanes are truly needed at peak, one could convert part of Van Dorn (say from Braddock to Sanger) into a three-lane road where the middle lane reverses depending on time of day, like Connecticut Ave, which would also make space for a MUP.

Kenmore itself is fine for bicycling, but you can’t cross Seminary.

[scoot]

@scoot 134746 wrote:

East of Queensberry, there is a sidewalk.

I need to correct this statement. Sort of.

There is a sidewalk. But of course, VDOT left large gifts all over it in January. I had the opportunity to observe the status from my car a few hours ago. (Sadly, taking night classes at GMU Fairfax has me driving much more than biking as of late). Tough to see while driving past in the dark, but that sidewalk looked like it will not be rideable for weeks.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 134876 wrote:

At tonight’s meeting T&ES presented three options. Option 1 was basically no build plus – they would add ADA compliant curb cuts,at the bus stops, stripe crosswalks parallel to King only, and nothing else. Option 2 is what I would call a 4 to 4 road diet – convert one of the westbound lanes to a left turn lane, add ped islands, crosswalks, RFB lights, and some other intersection improvements, no bike accomodations. Option 3 is a 4 to 3 road diet, with buffered bike lanes in both directions from Chinquapin to Janneys. From Chinquapin to the west end if the study area, the westbound buffered lane would continue. Eastbound we would get a sharrows, because they want a right turn lane into the High school, and the wide sidewalk is available for cyclists unwilling to take the lane. Buses will stop in the bike lane, and there will be several driveways across it, which is why T&ES does not propose a PBL. T&ES presented data showing minor incremental delay to motorists. They seemed to favor option 3, which adds to the traffic calming, adds seperate on between peds and motor traffic, shortens the motor traffic area peds must cross, as well as providing accommodation to cyclists. 70% of attendees supported 3, the rest split between 1 and 2, with at least one picking choice 4, which was to present their own idea in a comment form. There was discussion of adding traffic lights, which T&ES thought was not possible, of reducing the 35MPH speed limit, of adding protection to the bike lanes, etc. Note the buffered lanes would be 5 ft plus a 2ft buffer.

Thanks for this info.

From your description, Option 3 sounds wonderful. It evinces a thorough consideration of a variety of issues affecting users of King Street, and whoever designed it should be commended.

Roadways generally function best when all passing (except of left-turning vehicles) is done on the left, and it sounds like T&ES gets this. Example: merging into traffic to pass stopped buses is not ideal for bicyclists, but trying to pass them on the right is a fool’s errand. Also, the sharrows treatment west of TC will reduce right-hook conflicts with a subset of the driving population rarely lauded for their situational awareness or attentiveness (i.e. student drivers and dropoff parents), so I think it’s the right call for the beginning of the eastbound bicycle facility.

Are the 3 vehicle lanes each 11 ft wide?

Options 1 and 2 are obviously not optimal here, but I would hope at the very least that they would include sharrows.

[scoot]

Baby steps, I suppose.

With any luck, the public will:
1) see these new MUPs and start using them recreationally
2) wonder why they don’t connect
3) realize that bridging those gaps would empower them to make many trips by bicycle
4) add their voices to support allocating the money necessary to finish the project

[scoot]

@CaseyKane50 134743 wrote:

Here is information from the West End Transitway FAQ
…
– S. Van Dorn Street (except on existing railroad bridge and just north of Edsall Road) between Eisenhower Avenue and Stevenson Avenue): 12-foot wide multi use path on the east side
– N. Van Dorn Street from Landmark Mall Driveway to S. Holmes Run Drive: 10-foot wide multi use path on the west side
– N. Van Dorn Street from N. Holmes Run Drive to Sanger Avenue: 10-foot wide multi use path on the west side
– Beauregard Street between Sanger Avenue and Rayburn Avenue: 10-foot wide multi use path on the east side

As you noted, the gap will still exist between Sanger/Richenbacher and Braddock on Van Dorn. There will also be a gap between Stevenson Road and Landmark Mall Drive.

The strip between 395 and Van Dorn (from Braddock to Landmark) would be a wonderful location for a MUP, due to the lack of road crossings and the high demand for transportation along that corridor. In that respect it would be analogous to the Custis trail along 66. But these gaps need to be filled in order to maximize its utility as a transportation alternative.

Is there also a gap between N Holmes Run and S Holmes Run (i.e. the trail won’t bridge over the creek)?

[scoot]

@Steve O 134734 wrote:

@Tania 134722 wrote:

but I can meander down to Wakefield Chapel road but that puts me on Braddock longer than I’d like (there may be a acceptable shoulder though, I’ve never ridden on Braddock…)

Braddock has a good shoulder in that vicinity, but is still unpleasant to ride on due to car speeds. There is often gravel and debris on the shoulder and it goes away at intersections. That’s actually a pretty short ride on Braddock from Wakefield Chapel to the shopping center and I think you have a shoulder the whole way. Take a left out of WC with the light, put it in high gear, and you’ll make it most of the way there before the traffic even catches you!

You could also push the pedestrian crossing button at WC/Braddock. That will give you more time before the herd of automobiles on Braddock gets a green light behind you. (Although it might also anger some of the drivers!)

This part of Braddock is roughly flat until Inverchapel, then it starts going up. I would consider bailing over to Adair Ln between Inverchapel and Queensberry, because that’s where it starts going uphill: the cars will catch up to you there and be fighting each other for lane position at the 495 interchange. East of Queensberry, there is a sidewalk. Also the shoulder between Inverchapel and Queensberry is very narrow and rocky.

Do Braddock Rd bus riders actually use those unsignalized crosswalks to and from the stops? That’s like painting crosswalks on the Beltway.

[Author]

Posts