[zsionakides]

@TwoWheelsDC 183313 wrote:

I get that some people “feel” that this is true, but I just don’t believe it absent actual data. Have trail collisions gone up? Has the severity of injuries increased? Are e-bikes involved in a disproportionate number of these collisions? Show me the data and I’ll change my mind, but otherwise the arguments boil down to tribalism and little else.

There probably isn’t very good data, or really any data, on trail collisions, but the physics and science would support e-bikes causing worse, and probably more frequent, collisions than regular bikes. E-bikes weigh more than a regular bike which increases the force of a collision and would increase the severity of injuries. Traveling at higher speeds increases the force of an accident exponentially, which also increases the severity of injuries in that accident. Speed differentials causes higher proportions of crashes in automobiles, and that can probably be a reasonable proxy for MUPs.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 183287 wrote:

Generally, I think ebikes flatten the ability curve. Sure, there should be a restriction such that we don’t give ebikers super-human abilities, but it’s reasonable to give them fit-human abilities, then trust that folks on ebikes, just like fit-humans on non-ebikes, will behave appropriately.

The main issue is that ebikes are flattening the curve the wrong way. E-bikes that are assisting up to 20 and 28 mph change the average speed on trails upwards and let more riders be jerks at high speeds, even if many e-bike riders aren’t jerks. This creates a safety issue by increasing the speed differential between walkers and high speed e-bikes and greatly increases the severity of accidents that occur.

If the assist was capped at 10 or 15 mph under penalty of being 100% liable for any violation of this type of vehicle, that would be different, but that’s not what the legislation has been modeled on.

[zsionakides]

@hozn 183270 wrote:

Um. I don’t know about you, but I cross 29 2x per day and I would much, much rather have a bridge over 29 than something to skip the EFC neighborhood. I have been almost hit numerous times by northbound drivers turning east onto onto Wash Blvd ignoring the no-turn-on-red sign and then drivers turning off of 66 on to Washington St. with a green light ignoring bikes in the crosswalk. Or a red light ignoring the no-turn-on-red-when-peds-present sign (since the gap in the light often feels like a safer time for bikes to cross).

The neighborhood, on the other hand, has slow traffic, one 4-way stop and nice holiday decorations. Sure, it’d be a little quicker to ride over it, but it’s not an unpleasant part of my commute. And it’s not a scarier place than the W&OD to ride with a preschooler (riding his bike).

This may be a commuter perception vs someone riding through recreationally. For commuters going through at rush hour, US-29 is probably terrible for crossing like other busy roads, whereas for recreational riders, navigating through EFC and Banneker park are a challenge with the trail gap and limited signage.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 183243 wrote:

Chris is right – the new bridge is just a way to avoid crossing the street at grade. However, many of us would like to see a bridge on the W&OD from approx. the EFC Metro to East Falls Church Park (i.e. over Sycamore Street and the I66 on ramp) so that cyclists can avoid the EFC neighborhood and Benjamin Bannaker Park altogether.

I’m not sure why this wasn’t the priority to build with the I-66 funds. It would make sense in conjunction with the I-66 widening and have more impact than crossing over US-29.

[zsionakides]

@LhasaCM 183261 wrote:

Unfortunately, by having the bike/ped bridge upstream (so between the rail bridge and Metro bridge), doesn’t it complicate that connection a bit since you have to somehow cross the train tracks?

It seems like you could run the bike bridge under the train tracks to cross to the other side. That wouldn’t be that complex.

[zsionakides]

@Emm 182730 wrote:

True, I didn’t catch that in your original post.

I tried the route today. As expected, it added time and distance to my commute, so I am still not pleased with it. I am hoping Arlington switches one lane on the overpass to be bikes and pedestrians like they indicated they might. I see zsionakides post above saying it might be, so I’ll check it out tonight on my ride home. Heading home is easier since I can just take the lane on Glebe and don’t need the sidewalk.

Bobco–good advice on the beg button. I remembered that after 1 light cycle, and it worked pretty quick.

I went by there again and can confirm there’s a pedestrian/bike area coned off from the intersection of W. Glebe/S. Glebe to the entrance near the Xtra Fuels gas station. The only issue is that it’s pretty narrow, which could be fixed by moving the barrels closer to the lane line. If you are going west bound you would need to either take the lane on W. Glebe or ride on the eastbound side sidewalk.

[zsionakides]

@bobco85 182716 wrote:

Slight correction: going eastbound, after one crosses Glebe Rd on Old Dominion Blvd, they would have to turn left onto Notabene Dr (which becomes Four Mile Rd) because Old Dominion Blvd is one-way in the other direction. Also, IIRC the intersection of Old Dominion Blvd/Glebe Rd does not detect bicycles, so folks will have to use the pedestrian beg buttons to cross.

Hopefully they will actually convert one of the lanes on the bridge to ped/bike use.

I drove over this today and one of the eastbound lanes has been blocked off for peds/bikes. The bigger issue is I saw three trucks, including a semi, go over the bridge the other direction. The signage is just the temporary construction message boards which aren’t clear about weight limits.

[zsionakides]

@mstone 182444 wrote:

I can’t think of a spot where the MVT or Custis are directly between a 10 lane expressway and a sound wall for miles on end. Where custis is adjacent to 66 it’s generally either at a different grade level or outside the sound wall. The MVT is a completely different beast; people complain about the highway adjacency quite a lot, and it’s pretty unsafe, but the road and scenery are a lot less unpleasant than 66.

The WWB path is next to a 10 lane expressway, the PBLs and sharrow Army Navy Drive path are next to 10 (soon to be 11) lanes of I-395 with no sound wall, and the Washington Blvd path is next to a 6 lane expressway. All of these are used modestly and in proportion to their usefulness for getting around. Better connected bike paths get more usage, which is the most important thing for the success of the I-66 path.

For clarification, I’m not advocating for this bad design on I-66, but I would put safety and connectivity of a path above comfort and pleasantry in projecting usage. Despite a less than ideal design, this is still a major improvement over riding in traffic on 40+mph roads or on the sidewalk of 6-8 lane roads.

[zsionakides]

@huskerdont 182397 wrote:

“Can’t wait to take the dog for a jog on this new multi-use path” are words you won’t be hearing.

Complete joke of a design that will be little used and will be converted to a car travel lane eventually with the non-use cited as the reason.

I would rather go jogging on this with long uninterrupted stretches than on sidewalks or places with crossings and lights to deal with, even with it being next to the highway. The MVT and Custis trails are next to highways in spots and that doesn’t discourage use. The WWB trail sees plenty of usage on a regular basis and it doesn’t connect to much on the MD side. The main thing I see that will drive use on this trail is how well it connects to other bicycle facilities, particularly the W&OD, and to the neighborhoods nearby.

[zsionakides]

These seem like places where a more solid buffer such as planters would work better than flex posts. That would encourage care when a passenger in the car is opening their door since they wouldn’t want to bang it and scratch it up.

My gut is that the PBLs are better for slower riders that don’t want to interact with general traffic, and the serious injury risk is lower since a dooring incident doesn’t push them into traffic with the risk of being run over by another car. For faster riders who are more comfortable in general purpose lanes this probably isn’t much of an enhancement, if any.

[zsionakides]

@bentbike33 182335 wrote:

The pavement past the light pole could have been extended a bit further down the hill before cutting left,

I agree with this. I almost ran off the pavement as I was coming through there the first time, as the straw makes it hard to tell where the pavement ends. I can’t imagine adding a little more pavement would have added but a trivial amount of money to the project.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 181995 wrote:

But the one on the water side comes up to one’s torso. Less chance of falling over it.

Maybe if your on a recumbent or BMX bike it comes up to your torso. On most bikes your waist is going to be above that railing.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 181965 wrote:

For the TR Bridge, I think a simple improvement would be to replace the low barrier between the path and the road, which now sits on the path’s elevated bed, with a nice tall barrier that sits in the shoulder of the roadway. Seems like a relatively cheap way to get more protection and an extra foot for the path.

If we’re only fixing one of the barriers on the TR bridge, my vote is for the one on the water side. That’s a long drop with little chance of survival. At least on the highway side, the cars might slam on their brakes to avoid or limit the impact.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 181717 wrote:

I too would think that “westbound sidewalk” means the upstream side. But when one continues reading, the details of NPS’s ped/bike detours correspond to the case where the downstream sidewalk is closed and the upstream sidewalk is open. So it’s unclear at best.

Going over the bridge, it looks like the downstream side will be closed first. The reversible lane lights are set up on the west bound side, which I’d assume corresponds to the side they are leaving open for bike/ped.

[zsionakides]

@DCAKen 181033 wrote:

This was just announced (https://www.nps.gov/nama/learn/news/biketrailwork.htm)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18366[/ATTACH]

Any idea what the scope of the cycle track on East Basin Drive will be. I couldn’t find any project information on this. It would be nice if it went to Ohio Drive to give riders coming to the 14th st bridge against traffic an alternative to the sidewalk.

[Author]

Posts