[scoot]

@PotomacCyclist 119310 wrote:

Are there alternate routes? In some locations, a parallel street might have more foot traffic, although some particular neighborhoods might not be safe.

There are some medium-speed arterial roads (e.g. Columbia Pike, George Mason, Glebe) that I might avoid during the daytime (due to heavy traffic) but that become my preferred routes when riding at night (because some activity on a well-lit road feels safer than dark neighborhoods or trails).

The drivers almost always pass very safely when I take a lane, and they never have any difficulty or delay changing lanes to do so when traffic is so light. On the flip side, I figure that drunks are probably a higher risk late at night.

[scoot]

@dkel 119099 wrote:

Drop that phone
Eyes ahead
Can’t get home
If you’re dead

This one wins my vote. Great combination of brevity, meter, rhyme, and message.

[scoot]

Friday afternoon in the office… time for some limericks:

If you can’t seem to drive on this block,
Without using your phone for a talk,
Then you’re putting a stranger
In very grave danger
You could hit someone out for a walk.

If you’re always in such a mad dash,
You could be the cause of a crash
If your foot’s full of lead
Then a bike or a ped
becomes blood stained all over your dash.

A little girl wonders, “where’s my dad?”
When she learns, she will break down and cry, sad,
Because dad’s bike was hit
By an arrogant twit
Who thought he could drive with his iPad.

Here’s more of a Burma shave meter:

Please hang up your phone
and don’t send that text.
Have any idea
what’s coming up next?
Pedestrian crossing
Is right up ahead
If you are distracted
Someone will be dead

Definitely leaning toward the morbid here. I suppose it’s tough to be light-hearted while conveying the proper message though…

[scoot]

@dbb 119019 wrote:

I find that motorists have trouble seeing bikes when they are driving in a straight line and the bikes are going the same direction. Alas it may be more than the motorist can process to ask them to drive in a circle and not run into some cyclist that is entering the roadway.

Traffic in a roundabout always has ROW over those attempting to enter. Entering bikes should yield just like anyone else would. I’ve never encountered a motorist failing to notice me taking the lane in any of the Fairlington roundabouts.

Does ICD mean inner circle diameter? If so, these roundabouts are 60% larger than the ones in Fairlington. Which means drivers can navigate them at higher speeds. Reducing the diameter of these circles would be very helpful (both to road and sidepath riders). Although I suspect that slowing down vehicles is not high on the list of objectives for the folks who drew up these concepts…

[scoot]

@Steve O 119011 wrote:

I like this concept for the north side, because it connects Long Bridge Park to MVT with no crossings.
I hate the south side of Boundary Channel, though, because of the way those crossings are designed–moving the bike traffic out of the sight lines and onto the curves–not even where the traffic is going slowest. For s-bound traffic I would feel safer riding in the road than following the path…

That design really has to be rethought, because it does not create a feeling of comfort and safety and probably increases danger over the current design (which is just a wide road)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. I had noticed those setbacks too, but I suppose I’m fixated on the roundabout connection at the moment.

Bad crossings like this are both a safety hazard and unnecessarily inconvenient for bike riders. Hence why I feel safer and more efficient taking vehicle lanes in many places. Of course the crossings along the Route 27 trail between Pentagon and Memorial Bridge suffer from similarly poor design, and I do use the trail there…

[scoot]

@dbb 118996 wrote:

I find motorists (myself included) to drift to the outside of a turn so I probably would consistently use the trail under 395 and then would stay on the trail past the roundabout.

Motorist drift is not an issue if you take the center of the lane through the roundabout.

To clarify, I drew a zoomed-in view of the route I would like to travel when using this connection. Pink lines are from MVT to BC (either direction on BC), while the yellow lines represent movements from BC to MVT. I believe many other cyclists would also prefer this direct transition to the roundabout, as opposed to having to use the sidepaths and crosswalks (which will inevitably be littered with “stop and dismount bicycle” signs just like every other MVT crossing…)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8974[/ATTACH]

The current proposal does not appear to accommodate these movements, so we’d get another desire path. Can this be fixed? It would require another 100 feet of asphalt trail, plus curb cuts (if the plans include curbs).

[scoot]

@dbb 118979 wrote:

That was discussed with the designer that was standing by this panel and he indicated that third leg of the triangle was likely an oversight and was indeed necessary.

How about the lack of a direct connection into the roundabout?

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 118977 wrote:

I do that every commute at 30th and Columbus in Fairlington – fortunately there is very little traffic, but what IS the correct way to do that – ride in the middle of the lane, or to the right edge of the roundabout?

DaveK brings up an excellent point about roundabouts.

I used to live near the roundabout in front of Fairlington Community Center (at 34th and Stafford). I always use the center of the vehicle lane there. When I use to hedge and stay right to accommodate a car, close calls were inevitable, b/c I couldn’t predict which exit the driver would take. I also avoid the bike lane at Thomas Circle, taking the right auto lane instead from 14th to M.

Both of these are examples of very poor design that goads cyclists into riding in the least safe place on the road.

These Boundary Channel roundabouts should be a single lane, and road-sharing should be accomplished with temporal, not lateral spatial offsets!

[scoot]

I know it sounds crazy, but another option to consider might be to take the left lane of Route 7 for that long block. I’m guessing there’s enough time to ride from Gosnell down to the Spring Hill turn lane before the traffic signal unleashes the hordes. I’m not too familiar with the traffic patterns out there though, so I wouldn’t do it before investigating that…

[scoot]

@Steve O 118924 wrote:

And non-segregated facilities already suggest to most people that they shouldn’t be riding a bicycle.

But it’s not the facilities per se that they’re afraid of, it’s bad drivers. Why do we accept these little safe-haven band-aids all over the place as a substitute for addressing the real problem?

The analogy in that cartoon is utter nonsense. I’ll have to remember that the next time my car is low on fuel: run down a cyclist so I can fill my tank with his organic matter… :rolleyes:

[scoot]

@DismalScientist 118860 wrote:

Does the traffic volume on the road really justify having segregated bike paths underneath 395? Besides a trail connection, I would think the only thing needed is a good paving job and lights under the bridge at 395.

All the proposal look to me to make it difficult to just turn from/to the road to/from the trail.

+1

My recent experience with this area is off-peak, but I sometimes went through during rush hour a few years back when I was using the slug lines to go south. Peak or off-peak, I have never seen much activity at this interchange.

All three designs make it unnecessarily difficult (i.e. sharp turns at crosswalks) to transition between the MVT connection and the BC roadway. Concept 1 is best, because it eliminates the offramps right next to the connector, but it still needs a direct connection into and out of the roundabout. I’d prefer to see the trail connector function as an equal participant in the roundabout (something like the pink lines drawn here, showing how one could get to/from Long Bridge Park):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8968[/ATTACH]

And of course, build all the orange sidewalks also so that people can choose to stay off-street if they prefer.

[scoot]

@mstone 118808 wrote:

I find myself giggling that the idea of putting up a “sign” is less obvious than tweeting.

I suppose it’s also an indication that my flip phone and I are rapidly becoming obsolete around these parts

[scoot]

Good question.

At the very least, they should put up a sign at the usual dock location telling people where the station has been temporarily relocated to. If the usual location is itself off-limits due to the construction, there should be signs wherever the edge of the construction area meets an approaching road. Same thing for bus stops. For either mode, there are lots of users who aren’t online continuously.

[scoot]

Very sad to read this.

(based only on news reports, including this one from Leesburg Today):

Both riders may have been heading eastbound on the trail just west of the Ashburn Village Blvd underpass. Man attempts high-speed pass in the left lane, as is common on the W&OD. Juvenile traveling slowly attempts to make a left turn either heading toward AV Country Day School, or else just heading for the parallel gravel path. One or both parties may have failed to communicate. Collision occurs at the red star in the image:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8898[/ATTACH]

[scoot]

Hmm… there is already another station pretty close to the south (at Columbia Pike and Walter Reed), but none to the north. So the location makes sense from a coverage perspective. On the other hand, there’s probably much less demand north of 8th St S, because that’s mostly low-density residential.

Also, Penrose Square needs a closer CaBi station. It’s midway between the stations at Walter Reed and Courthouse, but is not super convenient to either. Plus both of those stations are on the opposite side of the Pike from the square. I’m not sure where the best spot would be. For marketing/visibility, somewhere between the fountains and the Pike/Barton intersection would be great. But the Pike isn’t the most attractive place to ride, plus you’d be starting at an elevation disadvantage to head either east or west. You could ride through the Giant garage to reach Adams and then 9th, though. 9th and Barton is convenient to a calmer ride on 9th Street, but building shade could be an issue for powering the kiosks.

[Author]

Posts