[WillStewart]

@Dirt 1240 wrote:

I got a few interesting comments when I rode my unicycle to the Metro last winter in a snow storm. Need to see if I can hook up a moped motor to it. NOT

And several more…

[WillStewart]

See the thread on accidents, very closely related. NEVER say “I’m fine” as a problem could arise later after the adrenalin and endorphins wear off. Say “I don’t know” until you can get a medical assessment.

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?1383-Crash!!-You-ve-had-an-accident-with-a-car.-What-do-you-do-now

Sounds like an assault case to me – were the cops witnesses? If not, did you get any witnesses names? It sounds like the Escalade driver admitted his actions to the officers – can you get a copy of the report?

[WillStewart]

Welcome aboard, Kenny! Yes, bike commuting opens up another world, and not only keeps one fit, but lowers commuting costs dramatically as well. Stay safe and enjoy.

[WillStewart]

This is one reason I’ve used blink mode with a low (80 lumen) light, as it tends to draw more attention coming up behind ninjas. That and it’s mounted on the front of my recumbent, so I can’t just reach up and change it at speed. With my new helmet light added to the mix, I plan to move my head around to ensure the lighting changes are noticed, instead of just a gradual change a fixed light often has.

[WillStewart]

Mark, I believe what you’ve posted addresses all the aspects of this particular thread quite completely.

[WillStewart]

Just found out last night that the young woman driver is a cycling enthusiast herself, and was hit by a car once as well. She’s being reallly hard on herself.

[WillStewart]

@Dirt 9645 wrote:

One more thing for people who are really distracted by approaching cyclists lights… Wearing a cycling cap with a little visor under your helmet can allow you some protection. You can tip it down enough so that you still have good view of the road in front of you, but you’re not having to look directly into the approaching headlight.

This also helps to keep the morning/evening low angle sun out of a person’s eyes, especially on a recumbent.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9860 wrote:

This study addresses the use of HOV in Salt Lake City and (after an exceedingly quick glance) seems to show that the HOV lanes move more people than the general purpose lanes. That’s all fine and dandy. Here the HOV lanes and the general purpose lanes were on the same freeway. The problem with Arlington is that I-66 are the HOV lanes and Arlington Blvd. acts as the general purpose lanes. I think this is the only HOV system in the country that is set up this way.

But if you were to take the HOV lanes and turn them into GP lanes, there would be far less incentive to carpool, and single occupancy vehicle use would soar, with no clear hope or promise of increased person/hour throughput rate, which would leave you in exactly the same (or higher) side street congestion situation, except with higher local ozone, PM-2.5, and other pollution.

[WillStewart]

For visibility from the side, does anyone use Monkey lights or the equivalent?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]439[/ATTACH]

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9847 wrote:

What I would like is for road that I have problem with high amounts of traffic to be restricted and that extra traffic to be diverted to roads where the traffic doesn’t bother me. Because of the way that it is designed, the traffic on I-66 does not bother me.

This captures your entire motivation. You want the road network to be changed so that traffic on your preferred road is lightened, regardless of the impact to the rest of the travelers.

Others are calling for a systemic solution that addresses the greater good. I personally think it would have been better just to bring in the Metro and not 66, to reduce the amount of suburban sprawl, though car addiction was even higher then, undoubtedly affecting the decision.

@DismalScientist 9847 wrote:

On budgetary issues–who knows how tradeoffs are made?

While this doesn’t specifically focus on budget tradeoffs, it should help address your inquiry tangentially by addressing Policy Change Motivations.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09029/index.htm

And this one addresses some of the techniques involved in success (or failure) of HOV projects.

http://www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC04-158.pdf

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9843 wrote:

Sorry, I was less than concise. I don’t know anyone who has to live in Loudoun. I would imagine people choose to live there given their relative valuation of commuting costs, relative amenities (lawn, lack of people riding carbon bikes in full kit when they can be riding a classic steel bike with shifters on the downtube as God intended, (OOPS, that came out?) etc), housing costs, job locations, etc. I don’t see how smart growth lowers housing prices in Arlington so that people in Loudoun would choose differently. If you mean that these people would choose to live in the high density areas afforded by smart growth, then there is a profit opportunity for high density development in Arlington and it doesn’t need to be encouraged by government.

Building more road lanes enhances the perceived benefit to living further away, even if it means driving more. In other words, it induces sprawl, which induces higher VMT, which generates more congestion, pollution, reliance on foreign oil, ozone, PM-2.5, etc.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9823 wrote:

Gee…. It seems mighty short-sighted of the voters out there to allow such politicians to be installed against the voters’ self interests.

Welcome to the destructive effect of the influence of money in politics. If you are chagrined by this as well, you may want to attend this event this Saturday.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9829 wrote:

The fact that people drive by themselves tells me that they view the costs of doing so (whether monetary or other intangible) is lower than their other alternatives, be they carpooling, bicycling, transit, whatever. I view the choice of transportation as an optimization problem, not one of “acceptance.” Just because people drive doesn’t mean they want to, only that it is the least costly solution for them.

There are cultural and habit ‘inertial’ factors at play here, however. For example, I introduced a good friend of mine moving back to the area to commuter bus service. He had never taken a bus to work in his life, although there were opportunites in the past. He viewed riding buses as something the lower classes did, not someone like him in the middle class. He’s now sold on the lower financial cost and lower stress (and undoubtedly lower time).

People are also creatures of habit. Even with gas prices over $3/gallon, people continue to drive to work by themselves, sometimes for long distances and in SUVs/minivans. One interview I remember is of a person commuting from Loudoun to Arlington in an SUV who answered the question about what he was going to do about the tripling in gas prices with, “What can you do? You just have to suck it up and pay the pump prices.” We come from a very different mindset, so putting ourselves in the shoes of others is not as easy as it would seem.

@DismalScientist 9829 wrote:

2) It most certainly is a multivariate problem. It is hard to model. As invisiblehand points out, there are few natural experiments and how do you properly account for all else equal. There are massive endogeneity problems with trying to measure the effect of induced driving on the quantity of throughput demand? Where’s the data? 😮

My two links above address this from a parameter and algorithmic basis, so additional cites help with empircal (and derived) data;

3. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Highway Expansion and Congestion in Metropolitan Areas, November 1998, Surface Transportation Policy Project

4. INDUCED DEMAND AND ELASTICITY, US DoT, 2002

---

EDIT: By the way, thank you for the collegial tone during our debate. All too often these days, exchanges are exercises in denigrating the other person instead of careful explanation of the facts and their perceived meaning.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9822 wrote:

Thank you.
The argument that you made is that the “log jam” effect would decrease throughput in the long run because of lowering the cost of driving.

Actually, that is not what I said. The cost of driving can be measured in several ways, including financial, time, stress, etc. My contention is that generated/induced traffic would create a logjam in the system (especially at the Rosslyn tunnel and Tysons ‘feeder’ road, if not also at the Roosevelt Bridge), reducing the person/hour rate of throughput. Part of this is related to culture, as well. A person in this area may be willing to accept a higher cost of driving if they are able to drive in by themselves (as the majority does, so the evidence is prima facia). Driving in alone invariably raising the financial and stress costs, and in many (or perhaps most) situations raise the time cost.

@DismalScientist 9822 wrote:

The DeCorla-Souza article correctly categorizes sources of induced travel. My argument is that point 6 is important and I value automotive traffic being induced from unimproved facilities (Washington Blvd) more than I devalue traffic moved to the improved facility (I-66).

This is a multi-variate problem, though, so my contention is that point 5 (and others) will overwhelm point 6.

[WillStewart]

What tends to happen over and over again (Til Hazel, Toll Brothers, etc) is that land speculators influence the elections in outer suburbs and exurbia to install development-friendly politicians. These politicians then change land use plans (or grant waivers) so that developers can turn farmland into housing developments. The houses are inexpensive, because the land is inexpensive, and the taxes are initially cheap. When roads, schools, etc have to be built, then taxes go up and residents blame the politicians who come later.

[Author]

Posts