[WillStewart]

Yes, citations are indeed important, as they help others understand how one came to take a particular position on a subject;

Generated and induced traffic;

1. Todd Litman, Generated Traffic and Induced Travel – Implications for Transport Planning, 8 June 2011, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Road improvements that reduce travel
costs attract trips from other routes, times and modes, and encourage longer and more
frequent travel. This is called generated traffic, referring to additional vehicle traffic on a
particular road. This consists in part of induced travel, which refers to increased total
vehicle miles travel (VMT) compared with what would otherwise occur (Hills 1996).

Generated traffic reflects the economic “law of demand,” which states that consumption
of a good increases as its price declines. Roadway improvements that alleviate congestion
reduce the generalized cost of driving (i.e., the price), which encourages more vehicle
use. Put another way, most urban roads have latent travel demand, additional peak-period
vehicle trips that will occur if congestion is relieved. In the short-run generated traffic
represents a shift along the demand curve; reduced congestion makes driving cheaper per
mile or kilometer in terms of travel time and vehicle operating costs. Over the long run
induced travel represents an outward shift in the demand curve as transport systems and
land use patterns become more automobile dependent, so people must drive more to
maintain a given level of accessibility to goods, services and activities

2. Patrick DeCorla-Souza, AICP, ACCOUNTING FOR INDUCED TRAVEL IN EVALUATION OF URBAN HIGHWAY EXPANSION, Federal Highway Administration

Induced travel can come from the following sources:

An increase in person trip production (P) related development

An increase in person trip attraction (A) related development

An increase in number of daily motorized person trip P’s and A’s per development unit

An increase in average motorized person trip distance

An increase in share of person travel by private motorized vehicles

A shift in vehicle travel to improved facilities from unimproved facilities within a corridor, or to an improved corridor due to diversion of traffic from other corridors.

When the frame of reference is the regionwide travel market, induced travel comes only from the first five sources. The sixth source comes into play at the facility and corridor levels, and may be more appropriately defined as diverted travel. Most transportation models do not capture induced travel from the first three sources. Most urban modelers do not increase input forecasts of total development regionwide to account for additional business and residential development induced to locate in the region by improvement in transportation levels of service, and often improved corridors are modeled with the same development inputs for the Build and No-Build cases.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9738 wrote:

If the actual throughput were to decrease, then the net cost of driving would increase by widening the road. I think there are some logical inconsistencies in your implicit transportation model.

If you would care to point any out, I’d be happy to discuss them with you.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 9734 wrote:

IMHO, building it to its full width within the walls doesn’t substantially add to the damage. Furthermore, it can limit the unintended consequences of the original restrictions.

I must say we’ll have to agree to disagree. The actual throughput of persons/hour would decrease because of the logjam effect. And likely more people would bail out to local Arlington streets, further exacerbating your daily commute.

[WillStewart]

CCrew, several here, including myself, can’t understand why you are beating a dead horse. “Yield to Peds IN crosswalk” describes exactly the situation I was in. The stopped car should not have begun moving forward, penetrating the crosswalk when a pedestrian was already in the crosswalk.

Since neither you nor the rest of us are lawyers (or judges), I think we’ve aired our opinions to the point of saturation.

[WillStewart]

@dasgeh 9726 wrote:

Eventually, the higher capacity I-66 will be just as full. And the additional drivers will spill over to Washington Blvd. We’ll be in the same situation we’re in today, except there will be even more cars out-and-about, and those cars will eventually leave arterials and park, drive through Rosslyn, drive around the District, or whatever. More cars = more hazards for us cyclists.

I live on Washington Blvd. I completely understand the desire to have the cars magically disappear from my neighborhood. But the way to do that isn’t to spend money on streets. It’s to spend money on things that will lead to fewer cars – easier carpooling, better buses, better Metro, more cycling, more smart growth.

Totally agree, and would expect the bleed-over on side streets to be the same regardless, when thousands more attempt to drive single occupant cars into DC or Arlington. A jam will occur, and those same drivers will bail out to Arlington Blvd, Lee Highway, and Washington Blvd. Look what happened when they expanded Rt 66 outside the Beltway? It has a lower service rating now than when it was two lane out past Fairfax. All it did was induce traffic and more sprawl. Building more roads is like buying larger waistband clothes to ‘solve’ one’s weight problem.

[WillStewart]

You are right, your response IS snarky

We can speak for ourselves, of course. I personally would like to get ahead of the major issues associated with a peak in global oil production, and such actions need to take place 10-20 years ahead of said peak, which most independent petrogeologists place in this decade, if it already hasn’t happened yet;

Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, US DoE, 2005

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-26/peak-oil-crisis-energy-trap

[WillStewart]

I am also against lifting the HOV or adding more lanes to 66 inside the beltway. It would only deepen the oil-addiction mentality of too many people, would cause horrible congestion (and lower throughput of people/hour), and would strip away all of the important gains made with respect to carpooling, vanpooling, bus riding, metro riding, and yes, cycling. Might this mean there were more and more cyclists ‘crowding’ Custis Trail? Yes, but that would be a GOOD THING.

I believe we should think and act like a community, not just each of us for our own self-interest,without regard to impacts on the rest of our neighbors and the region as a whole.

If they lengthened the HOV period, that would remove the early crush that lasts so long. And the hybrid exemption should be tweaked to only count for vehicles obtaining at least 40mpg combined hwy/city EPA, as gashog SUV and pickup hybrids don’t really help with our dependence on foreign oil. Or else make hybrids HOV-2 while the rest are HOV-3.

[WillStewart]

@mstone 9684 wrote:

…any argument that a car can start from a stop while a pedestrian is actually in an intersection and then run into the pedestrian is completely unsupported by the law.

That is what this all boils down to, and I’m surprised that there has been any debate on that point.

As mentioned previously I went into the ER Tuesday afternoon as I was experiencing a headache that was growing in intensity and pressure. A cat scan showed no cats , but the dr. said my headache would likely continue well into the next day. It did indeed, tapering off in the late afternoon, gone by bedtime. Telecommuting helped me to to take it easy and recuperate.

I am a bit sore and achy, but was ready to get back in the saddle today to ride the bike from the office to Bikes@Vienna (modest 8.5 mile ride) to make the necessary adjustments (recumbent with crooked seat and rack, plus shifter tweaks, and misc), except for the amount of rain forecast and my desire to keep my healing abrasions dry (plus I need to be at a 6pm community meeting in Loudoun and I work in Arlington, so timing would have been an issue).

Thanks to all for their support and encouragement

[WillStewart]

With a growing headache throughout the day, I decided to visit my doctor (an office full of doctors and RNs, really). I was told there were no more open appointments available, could I come in tomorrow? Then they would do an assessment and see if I needed to go to the emergency room. Dumbfounded, I asked the nurse “What would you do in my situation?” Her reply, “ … I don’t know”. So I went to the emergency room and had a cat scan – they saw no cats, so I’m ok. The doc said my headache will likely continue into today, and he has me on Tylenol.

I had continued biking to work after the accident, which I neglected to mention earlier. I left the bike U-locked in a locked bike parking cage in order to make it home and to the ER within a reasonable amount of time (an in case my headache became exacerbated by exertion or if I started getting dizzy from a delayed concussion). Will be working from home today, to recuperate.

[WillStewart]

@Greenbelt 9602 wrote:

pointing the helmet light to the side when meeting another rider (rare) or passing nighttime walkers (not too common).

mstone wrote:

I consider the helmet light to be the primary–the front mount light doesn’t have the predictive turn feature. … look down and right when approaching another light.

This sounds like an approach that may work for me in the Falls Church area (with 600 lumen helmet mounted light on ‘medium’), where there are frequent street crossings. For more lengthy sections of the trail without crossings, I’ll set the helmet light on low. For street use, helmet light on high (or on blink during daylight hours). I’ll keep the fixed weak front light (80 lumens) on blink in all situations as an added measure (looking for comments if this might be detrimental on the trail).

One light that provides excellent visibility without blinding other riders is the Phillips SafeRide, which creates a flattened rectangle beam, instead of the usual round beam pattern. It’s ‘only’ 400 lumens, but doesnt’ waste lumens in areas were you don’t want/need light;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]434[/ATTACH]

It’s unique pattern becomes starkly evident when compared to the rest, as in this 2011 MTB Bike Light Shootout;

http://reviews.mtbr.com/2012-bike-lights-shootout-backyard-beam-pattern-photos

The results of the 2012 Bike Light Shootout are at http://reviews.mtbr.com/2012-bike-lights-shootout

It should be noted, of course, that mountain bike riding and commuter trail riding don’t have the exact same lighting requirements. The amount of helpful information at the Shootout sites is significant, however.

[WillStewart]

Great news, way to stick with it!

How has your health/fitness improved? e.g., stamina, weight, resting pulse, blood pressure, etc

[WillStewart]

@elcee 9116 wrote:

Apparently the “no right turn on red” option has been studied, and would cause too many backups on I-66.

http://www.engagearlington.com/archive/2011/10/06/the-rosslyn-meeting.aspx

No reason not to have that sign with the common qualifier with an added twist “When pedestrians and cyclists are present”.

[WillStewart]

@americancyclo 9556 wrote:

motorist “courtesy” angers me like nothing else. on a bike or in a car. Don’t break the rules to be ‘nice’. Rules of the road are meant to be followed!

Since all cars were stopped before and after I entered the crosswalk, I didn’t think of this as a ‘courtesy accident’ scenario. I think of courtesy accidents as those where a driver in one lane (normally where cars are stopped) waving a person to cross the lane, followed by a car barreling down the adjacent lane plows into the person crossing.

I don’t believe I broke any rules, if that’s what you are suggesting. I was in the crosswalk with all cars fully stopped.

[WillStewart]

@americancyclo 9549 wrote:

I’m assuming you got her insurance information?
Which crossing was this at? All the smaller streets have giant neon signs that tell drivers to yield.

I have her contact info and license number. This took place at the Great Falls St intersection with the WO&D.

Interestingly enough, the driver in the lane closest to me had waved me on. I’m going to have to make adjustments to my assumption model with regards to obtaining eye contact or at least some level of awareness of all drivers involved.

[WillStewart]

@JustinW 9543 wrote:

Happy to hear that you are (mostly) ok. What did the driver say?

The driver is a young woman who was very apologetic and very concerned, tearing up at times. I’m going to do all the repairs I can to the bike myself first, before taking it to a bike shop. I consider this a learning experience for all involved, even the witnesses (who I have all the contact info for).

[Author]

Posts