[scoot]

@ebubar 113494 wrote:

I sometimes take Military, but the quality of that road is awful (especially the “bike lanes”) and I regularly see cars weaving in and out of them.

Military is completely out of my way, but I do love heading up there for some exercise on the hills. As you indicate though, the pavement is horrendous and the bike lanes are door-zone. The good thing is that there aren’t usually too many vehicles parallel parked on the roadway. I can usually adjust my speed to avoid encountering a parked car and a passing car simultaneously on the uphills. On the downhills I mostly take the lane.

In my experience, drivers are courteous there, but I’m usually not there during rush hour. I have ridden Military Road a few times during evening rush hour, and that is more stressful.

[scoot]

Interesting.

On a dark and rainy evening commute once I saw a few reflections of blue and red lights as I was riding up HRT under the railroad tracks toward Jordan Street. Next thing I knew I was face to face with an oncoming Alexandria police cruiser using the trail as a cut-through to Eisenhower. But this cop immediately pulled over as far as possible, ceding the entire trail to me, and waited until I was past. I’m guessing he had official business relating to an insane traffic cluster I had just escaped (eastbound Beltway looked dead stopped, with a lot of confused drivers bailing to the Clermont Connector), and that was his quickest route.

In any case, it is nice to know that I am clearly visible, even when there are police strobe lights cluttering the scene.

[scoot]

Might that stretch of Glebe be a good candidate for a road diet? According to VDOT, AADT in 2013 was 14k between Chain Bridge and Old Dominion. I seem to recall that 20k is the critical point.

There are alternative routes between Chain Bridge and Marymount, like Military Road to 31st/26th, which are either awesome (hills!) or awful (hills!), depending on your POV. But Glebe is certainly the quickest ride and gentlest slope, so it would be very helpful to improve it so that people can feel comfortable riding there.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 113444 wrote:

The numbers in the infographic seem very different from the results shown for the sample route which looked more realistic. Note that in analyses like this there are always lots of assumptions and analytic issues. Even if there is a rationale behind these numbers, don’t expect them to persuade everyone.

Excellent point. There is a ton of room for variation here.

FWIW, the external costs in the chart seemed surprisingly high to me, although the ones in the sample route seem low.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 113429 wrote:

I think you misread the linked piece to indicate 10x the current cost, I did not see that number there

The chart in the middle of the article claims that for every $1 someone in Vancouver spends to drive themselves around, taxpayers chip in an additional $9.20. So I interpret that to mean that internalizing these costs to the original driver would require collecting $10.20 from the original driver. Am I misinterpreting this chart? I presume that the computation accounts both for direct public expenses (e.g. highway maintenance) as well as the assessed value of indirect costs to society (e.g. air quality).

The IRS computes driving expenses to be roughly 50 cents per mile. If that 10x factor is legitimate, applies to Fairfax County as well, and costs were internalized here, it would then cost drivers $5 per mile. Or roughly $50k to drive 10k miles in a year. That would have a massive effect on total miles driven (as well as housing markets, job markets, land use policies, food prices, etc.)

Of course, it is certainly wrong to assume that the marginal costs of driving would remain constant with such a huge shift in the economy (and such policies would have to be phased in so slowly that the numbers would change significantly before coming close to total internalization). I’m sure the reality is quite non-linear. But it’s definitely food for thought.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 113364 wrote:

some Fairfax arterial roads will never get seg infra, and some of those are the only through routes available. There may be no way to overcome that.

I contend that there are ways to make these roads bicycle-friendly if you are ambitious enough. Technically feasible at least. Politically? Well there is definitely some work to do…

1) Internalize transportation externalities.
2) Make demonstration of on-road bicycling competency a requirement for a driver’s license. Include retest of skills as a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver with each driver’s license renewal.
3) Ban distracted driving.
4) Short license suspensions for all minor driving violations. Longer suspensions for major violations.
5) Traffic calming mechanisms (narrow lanes, remove double-yellow lines, add speed humps, etc.) to encourage thru traffic to choose major arterials instead (e.g. off Old Dominion and onto Route 7).

[scoot]

@dplasters 113350 wrote:

From a quick look at the source, the items are somewhat cherry picked. When you have quotes like

The Cost of Commute Calculator even assigns a value to the discomfort of riding a packed bus. After all, commuting on crowded public transit feels longer than the same time spent walking on a pleasant day.

But that aren’t then immediately followed by “and we say walking and cycling ‘costs’ more when its 35, raining, and windy because that feels worse than 72 with a light breeze.” you’re looking a bit biased.

I disagree with the notion that this example shows any bias. The point of computing externalities is to measure the impact that an individual’s choices (in this case, what mode of transportation to use) has on other people. Each person who chooses to ride the bus imparts a negative externality on the comfort of other passengers, if the bus is crowded. The weather is not affected at all by my choice to ride a bicycle.

I haven’t looked at the source, but the calculation for bicycles should involve a combination of positive (more riders = increased safety for each rider) and negative (more riders = congestion on the trails or roads, can be hazardous to pedestrians, etc.) externalities.

[scoot]

When riding to Ballston, I come up Irving Street from South Arlington. I get on Pershing either at Irving or Jackson, and turn on Lincoln to 5th. In the reverse direction, I use Monroe as a connector instead. This allows me to enjoy the blissful emptiness of 5th Street, while avoiding the stop-sign gauntlet at the eastern end.

[scoot]

I go out of my way to avoid inhaling secondhand smoke. When I used to catch a shuttle bus as part of my commute, I would wait maybe a hundred feet away from the shelter because there would inevitably be someone smoking there. Rather than trail behind a smoker on a sidewalk, I will sprint past to get ahead of the person. On the trail, I would probably do the same, or else drop way back and take a break.

The worst is on the road when someone pulls up to a stoplight holding a cigarette out of the window. If you don’t want it in your car, what makes you think everyone else wants a whiff? 😡

[scoot]

@dasgeh 113258 wrote:

internalizing the externalities of motor vehicles

I think this alone would be a total game changer. How would we adapt to a 10x increase in motoring costs? (BTW seeing those numbers surprised me; is the hidden subsidy really that high? If anything I would expect the ratio to be higher in the USA than Canada…)

add protected bike lanes or realistic alternatives to Georgetown Pike, Old Dominion, etc.

Is that doable even in this pie-in-the-sky scenario though? That’s why I highlighted those roads. I do think that the larger arterials (VA-7, VA-236, US-29, etc.) can and should be retrofitted to add sidewalks and well-designed protected bicycle facilities. And the newer roads (Fairfax County Parkway, Prince William Parkway, the expanded part of 123 from Burke to Occoquan) tend to have wide ROW, sparse intersections and well-separated MUPs. But you can’t overhaul all the Old Dominions of the world without an insanely expensive ROW grab. A few wide climbing shoulders could help, but taming drivers seems like the only economical approach to making these types of roads more bike-friendly.

[scoot]

Thank you for your responses and for engaging me in this discussion (which I am re-entering belatedly). I believe that the answer to your question will depend on how the problem is scoped geographically.

In the case of Arlington, we have a community that is already a wonderful place to get around by bicycle. That’s one major reason that I chose to move here. We have a network of trails along with a highly connected street grid, typical of urban design, that keeps traffic speeds low and provides numerous route options for most origin-destination pairs. The few roads that do facilitate high-speed traffic (e.g. Route 50) can be avoided entirely. So how to make Arlington even better? Studies have shown that increasing the number of riders is the best way to improve safety for all. And the evidence certainly suggests that, of all the approaches to increasing mode share, separated infrastructure will be the most effective in the short term. Thus it’s quite logical for Arlington to invest in separated infrastructure.

The suburbs are an entirely different beast, however. Not far from here there are a lot of roads that posses a rural character (single lane each direction, speed limits 35+) but carry suburban traffic loads. Some examples: Georgetown Pike, Old Dominion Drive, Clifton Rd, Hunter Mill Rd, Hooes Rd, Prosperity Ave, Cedar Lane (south of Vienna), etc. Lorton Road west of I-95, presently similar to the others, is getting a major expansion including bike lanes and sidepaths, but most of these roads don’t have room for sidewalks, let alone separated bike lanes. It would not be economical to build separate bicycle infrastructure along these and all similar roads. Compounding the problem: use of these roads is a necessity for anyone seeking to traverse these areas. In many places, there are no alternatives. If these roads are not safe to ride, that’s an awful lot of residences, businesses, etc. that are completely shut out from transportation cycling.

So I see reforming driver behavior (however difficult that may be) as the only approach that universally solves the problem, while I see separated infrastructure as a stopgap measure (that can relieve many of the symptoms without actually addressing the underlying problem). Reforming driver behavior : installing separated infrastructure :: reforming unhealthy diet/activity/lifestyle choices : heart bypass surgery. I’m sure someone could come up with a better analogy.

I want to emphasize that I absolutely did not mean to come off as dismissive of infrastructure accomplishments. Quite the opposite (and I think the existence of heart surgery is pretty great too)! I am thankful for the option of using bike lanes (protected or not) where they exist, and I greatly appreciate all the hard work that goes into making these things a reality. In my case, I might not have ventured beyond the Beltway or attempted my first bicycle commute were it not for the existence of the Holmes Run Trail, Clermont Connector, and especially bike lanes on Beulah Street (from Franconia to Telegraph). Like most riders, I prefer to reduce my exposure to motor vehicles, given that their operators cannot be trusted to act responsibly. But must we accept the latter condition unchanged going forward?

What steps would we need to take in order to envision a future America in which bicycling could be a viable transportation option for anyone, anywhere, anytime? A future that could include carbon pricing, much more expensive gasoline, congestion pricing, usage-based motoring fees, more extensive tolling, etc. Will the single-occupancy automobile’s near-total dominance of our society’s daily transportation activities survive these challenges? Will we double down on current policies that massively subsidize the trucking and automotive interests? There could be a huge opportunity for transportation cycling to resurge in the next few decades. Bicycling is theoretically very well suited to become an attractive and frugal alternative to many of these car trips. Especially in car-designed suburban communities that are too spread out for economical transit but are compact enough for distances to be easily rideable. But of course, there’s a huge barrier to overcome: transportation cycling cannot become accessible to the masses unless ordinary people can be confident that they can reach their destinations safely using a bicycle.

Call me hopelessly naive, but I remain optimistic that society can be cured of windshield perspective in the long run.

[scoot]

@kcb203 112452 wrote:

As an aside, Arlington County seems to think the stop sign at the Marriott entrance is legitimate.

https://seeclickfix.com/issues/638919

That is ridiculous. It’s not even a road, it’s a private driveway.

[scoot]

All the more reason to use the collies on Congress instead of the geese.

[scoot]

@oldbikechick 112346 wrote:

Or are we really not supposed to cross after the counter starts counting down? I always assumed that was not the case since in some places, there is no walk signal at all, just the countdown.

Technically it’s legal to enter the crosswalk if the walk signal is lit, and not legal for a pedestrian to begin crossing after a “don’t walk” hand begins to flash. Regardless of whether or not a countdown is showing, in either case. But practically, this law is ridiculous, both for the reason you mention and because it takes maybe two seconds for a fit person to sprint across most crosswalks. I believe that bicycles on the trail are considered pedestrians for the purposes of this law, which makes it even more ridiculous. Just another example of our laws and roadway designs prioritizing automobile travel while offering everyone else table scraps.

@oldbikechick 112346 wrote:

Or, maybe the guy was just being a jerk?

These things are not mutually exclusive

[scoot]

@dasgeh 112326 wrote:

So any cyclist that does something and ends up in the path of a car, even if it’s totally their fault, is more likely to die when the cars are traveling faster.

This is one of the reasons for 3-foot laws. And the required passing distance really should be greater than that for vehicles exceeding 35mph.

@dasgeh 112326 wrote:

Which is why I don’t think we can accept having a 10-year-old bike on a road where cars are traveling 35+ mph is an acceptable “safe” solution, even if drivers magically follow the law to a T.

An important part of following laws to a T is refraining from hitting people. Legally, speed limits are maximum velocities only to be reached under ideal conditions. If any situation causes driving at the speed limit to become dangerous, the driver is obligated to slow down to a safe speed appropriate for conditions. Which can include a bicycle on the road.

I assume you believe that adults have the right to travel such roads by bicycle. Do you think that 10-year-olds should be prohibited, in the absence of a PBL? On the flip side, is it feasible to install a PBL on every road where anyone might ever want to use a bicycle for transportation?

[Author]

Posts