[zsionakides]

@DismalScientist 188299 wrote:

The WOD next to Virginia Lane is a bike path (and I take the road since fast biking on basically sidewalks is dangerous). Similarly, what is along side MacArthur is basically a bike path. There are very few driveways that cross it. Fast riders tend to take the street and generally piss off drivers to no end. None of these are PBLs.

Bike paths or shared used paths are typically defined by having an exclusive ROW. Virginia Ln and Macarthur’s cycletracks do not have exclusive ROW, however, their design makes them feel similar in comfort to an SUP.

[zsionakides]

@DismalScientist 188284 wrote:

By the criteria you state, you are basically saying that all arterials in Arlington and in every metropolitan area in the country should be equipped with PBLs. Please tell me exactly where any PBL exists on a street lined with single family houses.

Virginia Ln where the W&OD runs next to it crossing several driveways. Macarthur Blvd in Maryland.

[zsionakides]

@DismalScientist 188242 wrote:

I think it is utterly foolish to think we can design PBLs so that Isabella can actually be safe in a PBL. A safe, fully segregated system would require separate bike paths (with separate signals at all intersections) paralleling all streets with traffic. PBLs are a poor half measure. We do not have the land nor the money for such a fully segregated system. Remember that distances are longer in this country than Europe. If such a system were fully utilized, we will have conflicts between faster and slower cyclists (and other users–what do we do with these damned electric scooters). If the bicycle infrastructure only allows low speeds, my commute by bicycle becomes untenable. A congested system of one type simply cannot accommodate all styes of cycling.

Most the PBLs that are in Europe don’t look much different than what is in DC on Water St or 1st St NE. The big difference is building out the network of them, instead of the bits and pieces we have.

Conflicts between fast and slow cyclists exists everywhere, but we’re not going to build a lane for every bike and vehicle type. PBLs fill the gap between low speed sidewalks and higher speed roads. If you want to ride at high speeds, I’d suggest riding on the road like others. PBLs, and really even unprotected bike lanes, aren’t that safe for high speeds when there’s a lot of traffic.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 188212 wrote:

Does the NACTO standard apply to one block sections though? In Alexandria on middle King, we have a short section in between the phase 1 bike lanes (south of Janneys) and the phase 2 buffered lanes, where we use sharrows – while I would love for that gap to be filled, I am not sure it violates NACTO standards (the speed limit there is 25MPH, but the volumes are considerable, I think)

None of King St meets NACTO standards. With King St’s traffic volume, they should have PBLs, not buffered lanes, unprotected lanes, or sharrows. King St feels like such a missed opportunity to build an end to end safe bike facility across Alexandria, all the way to the water and the MVT.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 188145 wrote:

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.

If you go by NACTO standards, you’d need to drop traffic volumes under 1,500 and drop the speed limit to 25mph to justify a shared road experience for cyclists. I believe Washington Blvd is upwards of 10-15k vehicles daily, so any shared solution is unlikely, barring making the road local only.

The need for a cycletrack, PBLs, or a separated bike path (this would be ideal) is due to the traffic volume, not just the speeds on the road. Even if you could slow average traffic speeds to 20mph, it would still make most average cyclists uncomfortable with cars constantly passing them.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 188100 wrote:

I love PBLs. I think we should have PBLs on all major streets in Arlington.

However, we shouldn’t build PBLs that have obstructed views of conflict points. Parking will obstruct views, so, in my opinion, PBLs that are beside parking are most appropriate on streets where there are few driveways.

On this stretch, the ideal would be to build one-way (i.e. one on each side) PBLs without parking where there are driveways. If you did a two-way cycletrack, on one side, I would want to see a parking pulled for a significant distance from each driveway, which would mean all parking removed for some of those blocked. That’s a heavy lift. Not that we shouldn’t propose it, but it’s a really heavy lift.

The issue with one-way PBLs on this part of Washington Blvd is they will have to be narrow and part of that narrow PBL will be taken up by the gutter on the road. This may end up with a worse situation than what is on Pershing’s PBLs. You will also have to take a lot of parking spaces for daylight with one-way PBLs, but I think the number would be much higher than with a 2 way cycletrack. From Ivanhoe east to Frederick, there is no parking on the south side, and on the block between Longfellow and Patrick Henry there are no driveways with the school being there, so parking could be kept entirely with a cycletrack. The blocks in between Patrick Henry and Ivanhoe may require a few spots taken, but those could possibly be replaced on the north side of the road with that bike lane removed and there no longer a need for mixing areas.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 188089 wrote:

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.

Such a facility would have far more usage across a broader spectrum of riders than the current door zone bike lanes. If you look at the cycletracks in DC (e.g. Penn Ave, 15th St, or 1st NE), they have much better usage than comparable on-street bike lanes including amongst the general public.

Safety wise, cycletracks (and really all PBLs) are meant for slower riding than on-street riding and caution should be taken through any intersection. For higher speed riders, I would recommend they ride on the street with traffic. For the general public of non-high speed riders (the 8-88 years old crowd), getting a protected facility gives them a much better place to ride then on a sidewalk or in a road they aren’t comfortable riding in.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187996 wrote:

It would be a ~3 block cycletrack. Would you cross the road to use it?

Checking the survey, it looks like VDOT is re-striping all the way east to N Frederick road, which is 11 blocks. I would recommend a 2-way cycle track the entire length on the south side, which would allow bike blvd connections to the Custis trail without having to cross Washington Blvd where there aren’t lights. Even a narrow cycle track (7-8ft wide) would be a big improvement over the door zone bike lanes that exist today.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187996 wrote:

It would be a ~3 block cycletrack. Would you cross the road to use it?

I wouldnt do so on my own as I’d just ride in the traffic, but I most certainly would if riding with my children.

I dont think there is any way to make the west bound side safe without major changes to the diagonal parking. My idea is to put a cycletrack on the south side to give a fully protected facility and a sharrow on the north side. In the future the cycle track could be further extended east/west, providing a protected facility without disrupting parking.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187864 wrote:

I’ve been told that curbs like that are almost always about water management and/or soil retention.

Soil retention makes sense for the concrete barrier next to the power line pole, but it doesn’t make sense on the curb cut for the road. If you see the curb cut they build on the southwest corner by the Shell station, it’s wide and easy to navigate for bikes crossing both Walter Reed or Four Mile Run.

[zsionakides]

@josh 187977 wrote:

So I was just at the open house, and what I learned:
* Medians and brick paver crosswalks will be gone (the impetus for the repaving)
* Pretty sure bike lanes will extend through these three blocks in both directions (connecting the ones both east and west of Westover)
* Main choice is between keeping parking on the north side (westbound) pull-in (27 spots), or convert it to back-in parking (rotating the slots by 90 degrees, and lose six spots to the angled tree peninsulas)
* Looks like the county is going to try to put an additional five parking spots by the post office (so a net loss of one spot potentially)
* The crosswalks will be made more visible (zebra stripes?), and if that’s not sufficient there’s a chance HAWK beacons could be installed

If I got anything wrong, I’m sure Erin can correct the record.

I heard back-in spots and adding a bike lane (or possibly the loss of parking spots) described as “draconian”, so there’s definitely some opposition. My personal thoughts are that if there’s any significant parking action going on, I’ll take the lane anyways. It’s like taking Clarendon Boulevard through Clarendon. You can either dodge rideshares dropping people off, people attempting to parallel park, people waiting to take right turns, or just take the lane and avoid all that and go at automobile speed.

Would it be feasible to fit a cycle track on the south side of the road, which would leave all the parking on the north side. Those going west bound who didn’t want to cross over twice could just take the lane, but those less comfortable riding in the road would have a protected facility. This would remove the interactions between an unprotected bike lane and all the parking on the north side of the road.

[zsionakides]

@CaseyKane50 187852 wrote:

I have seen similar curb treatments in Alexandria on both city projects and VDOT projects. My recollection is that this is an ADA requirement to help visually impaired users detect the edge of the sidewalk and the direction of the ramp.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19566[/ATTACH]

This curb cut wasn’t used at nearby Barcroft or George Mason drive projects, nor any of the recent Custis intersection improvements. I’m sure it’s a solution for some conditions, but I wouldn’t just assume it’s mandatory.

[zsionakides]

If Virginia Ln was a 26% grade, hardly anybody would be riding on it. Heck, a lot of vehicles would have a challenging time getting up that grade.

As others noted, it’s about 4% and not too hard to climb as long as you’re in decent physical shape. The eastbound side going up to Virginia Ln is actually more challenging as it’s probably around a 10% grade.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187709 wrote:

Great. Submitting comments is a great start.

I need to read the latest draft, but no draft that I saw called for any paint-only bike lanes. It may have said that sharrows could be used on low-speed residential streetsto indicate where there’s a bike boulevard. It certainly did not endorse “bike lanes to nowhere”. Quite the opposite — the draft plan indicates that we need to build out the network, and identifies where that needs to happen. Most of the routes are along major corridors — Lee, Wilson, Pike, Mason, Glebe.

My biggest criticism of the latest draft that was put out was not it was not transparent. It would indicate where we wanted “improved” bike facilities, and would say that all new bike facilities should comply with NACTO, but wouldn’t explicitly say “put PBLs here”.

A quick example that’s in the already funded project list is the Crystal Dr bike lane. Per NATCO standards that facility should be a PBL or bicycle path based on Crystal Drive’s traffic count, but they have just have a bicycle lane planned. Another one is the proposed “marked” bicycle lane on Lee Hwy between Veitch and Lynn, that implies striped and not protected, which is not within NATCO standards for a multi-lane road of that speed.

The bike “lanes to nowhere” comment is a general comment I have about the order that major projects are undertaken. My view is that any sizeable project should connect to an already existing used bicycle facility to ensure it’s being used. Otherwise it drives the narrative about unused bikes lanes taking up space for general travel lanes. A recent example I can think of is the buffered/protected lanes put on Van Dorn St in Alexandria between King and Braddock. Neither end connects to any other bike lane, so only confident riders are going to use them, which does almost nothing to increase overall ridership.

[zsionakides]

When I went by this evening there was a road closed sign at the intersection with the Custis trail blocking further progress west bound. I wasn’t travelling through that part of the W&OD, so I can’t confirm that it’s actually blocked in the construction zone, but signs are up.

[Author]

Posts