[scoot]

@dasgeh 188216 wrote:

This is where thinking about Isabella may lead to a different outcome. I agree most adults can get comfortable biking through what are essentially parking lots — slow moving cars, even with lots of turning movements (into and out of parking spaces).

But introduce kids in the mix, and there’s a different calculus. It would be a stretch to get elementary age kids to evaluate all the possible sources of danger with parking cars. Then there’s the height issue — at the BAC/Phoenix meeting, we heard from one teenager who rides a lot that she fears drivers just can’t see her around parked cars because she’s not tall.

So, yes, too many speeding cars is an issue. But too many parking cars is also an issue for design that truly works for all.

Very true. Yet it should be noted that most PBLs also endanger Isabella for the same reasons. Any separated bicycle facility that permits vehicles to turn across it requires its users to be very street-savvy and hyper-attentive. Even more so if the riders are under four feet tall and thus less likely to be noticed by drivers. Daylighting will certainly help more drivers see Isabella. What 8yo has the kind of situational awareness needed to protect herself from the variety of traffic risks she faces in this environment?

[scoot]

@dasgeh 188213 wrote:

But we need numbers, which means building infrastructure for the greater number of people who would ride on PBLs than the people who do ride like Dismal.

But WHY is ridership higher in cycletracks?

Two reasons:
1) a culture which prioritizes vehicle speeds over safety almost everywhere
2) a poor understanding of the relative collision risks between different types of lanes

Due to #1, many people are afraid to take the risk of riding a bicycle in shared space at all. Due to #2, they think PBLs are safer than conventional bike lanes or sharrows, when in fact the opposite is often true (e.g. where they reduce one’s likelihood of being seen by turning drivers).

The fact that cycletracks presently boost ridership does not mean that more cycletracks are the optimal way to improve safety or to increase ridership in the long-term.

[scoot]

@DismalScientist 188157 wrote:

When did I say I was against traffic calming?

@accordioneur 188141 wrote:

I’m with Dismal – I think there are better uses of the government’s resources than creating redundant infrastructure on what will always be an unpleasant cycling route.

I am sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you (or anyone else here) opposed traffic calming. My intent was to push back on the defeatism I read in the bolded phrase. I believe it is possible to transform any busy street into a place that is pleasant for cycling. And it doesn’t require any bicycle-specific infrastructure to do so in places like Westover, just a willingness to acknowledge and fix the real issue: too many speeding cars.

[scoot]

@accordioneur 188141 wrote:

I’m with Dismal – I think there are better uses of the government’s resources than creating redundant infrastructure on what will always be an unpleasant cycling route. My guess is that given the superior alternatives already available, a Washington Blvd cycletrack/PBL/whatever would see too little use to be worth the investment.

If I understand correctly, I don’t think lordofthemark is arguing for any specific bicycle infrastructure at all, but broadly for a mindset that gives more weight to the needs of local people in and around communities like Westover, and less weight to those who merely wish to speed through such places in their cars.

Yes this street is a poor fit for a cycletrack, for all the reasons mentioned previously on this thread. But that doesn’t mean it should be sacrificed on the altar of vehicular throughput. Just as W&OD is a superior alternative for thru-cyclists in the area, so too is I-66 available for drivers. Narrower lanes, raised pedestrian crossings, and/or lower speed limits could make a big difference. There is no reason that cyclists, even slow ones, couldn’t or shouldn’t be made to feel welcome sharing the road in this space.

The larger point: If we can’t overcome political and bureaucratic roadblocks to achieve even baby steps like traffic calming in Westover, what hope do we have in the larger fight for the long-term health of our planet?

[scoot]

@zsionakides 188083 wrote:

2-way cycle track the entire length on the south side

Such a facility would be more dangerous than the present configuration, especially for westbound riders on the downhills. Left-crossing drivers, eager to cut through the first gap in oncoming traffic, have enough difficulty yielding to pedestrians in those crosswalks. They will not look for bikes.

[scoot]

Right. Most of the door hazard could be fixed by moving the flexposts closer to the parking spaces and further from the bike lane. In some places it is possible to fit a car between successive flexposts.

[scoot]

PBL buffers I have seen are not wide enough to cover the door zone. Plus many drivers park their vehicles encroaching on the buffers. At least one driver on Wilson Blvd last night had parked entirely over the buffer, leaving only the gutter outside his door zone.

Poorly parked vehicles tend to encroach on conventional door zone lanes also of course. But it is easier to go around those ones safely.

[scoot]

@Steve O 187524 wrote:

@wheels&wings 187510 wrote:

Awesome – thank you TwoWheelsDC and ginacico! Gina, if I stay on the CCT past the tunnel, will the side trail to Sangamore be on my left? And then MacArthur will be on my left from there? Sorry…geographically illiterate, here. Thanks!!

Correct. The tunnel goes under MacArthur – that’s why it’s there. Before the tunnel MacArthur is on your right; after, it’s on your left.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

Slight clarification. The MacArthur/Sangamore intersection is located to your left after you go through the tunnel. But if it’s the side trail I’m thinking of, you access it by first turning to the right and then looping around under CCT.

[scoot]

A curb cut would be very useful for anyone trying to access the trail from the roadway, especially those riding across from the far side of Spring Hill Road. If motorist confusion is a problem, perhaps a design like this one could be implemented, instead of a bollard?

(In fact, the historical StreetView shows that Patrick Henry used to have a bollard here. Perhaps there is hope for the future.)

[scoot]

Basically, if you ask ten cyclists, you’ll get twenty different route suggestions. There’s no one great option that stands out above the rest; each route has its positive and negative aspects. So it all depends on how you ascribe relative costs between the various criteria (hills, distance, difficult road crossings, riding in shared traffic, etc.)

My personal choices for routes vary a lot depending on time of day, weather, etc. I enjoy having lots of options for how to get places, and I appreciate that Arlington’s general bike-friendliness is why so many options exist.

[scoot]

@Tania 186415 wrote:

I’m not a fan of Fillmore around 50. It’s narrow and there’s no bike path.

True. But in my experience it makes a huge difference which direction you are going. Northbound it is unpleasant, because some drivers become very impatient following a bike when they can see a green light ahead at 50. Or if traffic is heavy, one could encounter a long line of cars waiting for the light. Southbound neither of these situations is an issue at all, plus the slight downhill puts you closer to vehicle speeds. I usually divert over to Irving when heading north toward Clarendon but stick with Fillmore when heading south.

The underpass along Washington Blvd has high-speed highway ramp crossings. Drivers going from 50EB to 27EB are especially reluctant to stop or yield. I prefer to avoid this interchange entirely.

[scoot]

I live near your destination, so I’ve done this trip many times, albeit usually not at rush hour. Here’s a route I like, which adds some extra minutes but avoids the worst traffic spots (except IOD of course!).

When I come up Columbia Pike, I always take the lane through the interchange (Orme to Queen), usually hop on the sidewalk from there up to Rolfe, then head over to 9th Street and cut through the Columbia Crossing parking lot back to the Pike. From there, I will either take the lane or the sidewalk depending on how many cars I see coming up the hill and how many peds I see on that sidewalk. Past Courthouse Rd, the sidewalk gets much busier with pedestrian activity, so I would take the lane. If you don’t wish to stay in the lane all the way up to the drafthouse, 9th Street is a useful alternative.

The southside Route 50 trail is nice from Iwo Jima up to Pershing Street, but I avoid the northside trail west of there, which has multiple dicey crossings/intersections. Whenever I use that trail, I instead take Pershing west across Washington Blvd directly to Fillmore southbound.

[scoot]

@DrP 185137 wrote:

install a wall?

Easy. Just tell the current administration that some of the GWMP drivers are immigrants.

[scoot]

@Steve O 183433 wrote:

All you need is a desk, or a drawer.

I’d recommend a pair of drawers rather than just one.

[scoot]

And yet no mention of whether he was using lights or reflectors.

[Author]

Posts