[zsionakides]

I like the idea of scooters and the dockless model, but there being scattered about is a serious safety issue, particularly at night or in periods of low visibility.

My thought on regulating them is pretty simple:
1. Make it illegal to park them along any shared use path, bike lane, or cycle track except in designated parking areas.
2. If a scooter is illegally parked along said locations in #1, any person may remove the scooter after a period of one hour, take it to an impound lot, and collect a $50 reward. Scooter companies will pay a fine of no less than $100 for any scooter they want removed from impound.
3. Any accident involving a cyclist, runner, or pedestrian and an illegally parked scooter will be considered 100% the fault of the scooter company regardless of other extenuating circumstances.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 191517 wrote:

No turn is red is absolutely necessary here but also insufficient.

Even with “no turn on red” signage at these two intersections, I expect a low enough compliance rate that I would still feel safer riding in the street through this mess in spite of the obvious hazards of that. This sidewalk will not be safe to ride until both RTOR is prohibited AND some ancillary traffic calming measure is adopted to support that. Cameras for continuous automated enforcement? How about raising the crosswalks, forcing drivers to navigate a speed bump?

It seems like you’d need railroad crossing gates to prevent cars turning right on red.

[zsionakides]

@sjclaeys 191410 wrote:

Cool, so where does one go to determine the “Target Max. Motor Vehicle Volume (ADT)” for a given street or portion of a street?

From VDOT’s estimated counts, that part of Quincy St is 12k per day – https://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2018/AADT_000_Arlington_2018.pdf. By NACTO that should require PBLs.

[zsionakides]

@bentbike33 191398 wrote:

Nowhere, however, is the Custis Trail as close to the road as the inside-the-sound-barrier portions of this trail, except perhaps where the Custis is outside the sound barrier.

The bridge over Spout Run is right next to the highway. Also the part coming out of Bon Air park.

[zsionakides]

@mstone 191390 wrote:

the WWB bridge is a heck of a lot shorter, does not sandwich pedestrians between a sound wall and the highway, and actually has a view. not in any way comparable.

unsafe? yeah, well, I guess you haven’t look closely at what happens at the ramps for this mess of a trail.

WWB is similar in length to the segments on I-66 inside the sound wall and has similar noise issues. There are a couple similar sections on the Custis trail where the trail is between the highway and sound wall, but those are shorter segments. Both trails are well utilized regardless.

I agree that the ramps designs aren’t good. The usage of the trail will really depend on where users are going. If they are taking short trips to the metro stations or park and rides to catch a bus, then the ramp issue won’t be significant. If users are trying to go the full length of the trail, I think crossings could be a deterrent.

[zsionakides]

@mstone 191381 wrote:

You might, but most people won’t and that will make it harder to argue for future projects because “nobody uses them”.

I don’t agree that most people won’t use such facilites. The WWB trail is quite well utilized despite it being next to a 10 lane highway with only a jersey barrier, VA portion excepted with the nice clear sound proofing. People will use the facility that is convenient for them to get from point A to point B. We have such a dearth of safe bike facilities, that even ones next to a highway are going to be a major improvement over sharrows, riding on sidewalks, unsafe bike lanes, etc.

[zsionakides]

@Crickey7 191377 wrote:

Yep, they had a choice between making it a decent, useable trail, and making it something that looks good only on a map.

While I don’t think it’s ideal to have the trail inside the sound wall, I would rather have more trails that are separated, than worry about them being next to a highway.

In my case it would have been great if they built a trail along 395/95 like they are doing for 66. They could put the whole thing inside the sound wall and I’d ride it to avoid the long roundabout ways I have to commute by.

[zsionakides]

@Judd 191326 wrote:

I attended this meeting tonight along with several other forum members. It doesn’t look like the materials from tonight are on the project page yet. There were a handful of people there that were there to defend parking spots and were not very kind to staff.

There was a nice handout about how kids get to school at Washington-Liberty. About 25% of them do it by bike.

There were three concepts presented. Concept A and B had improvements for pedestrians including additional crosswalks and stop lines and also some paint (and maybe flexposts?) at some some the intersections to create wider turning radiuses. There was not too much difference in either of these concepts for bikes other than creating a 4 foot wide bike lane north of Washington Blvd where the bike lane currently disappears into sharrows.

Concept C included a paint buffered bike lane along with several pedestrian improvements.

It was good to see several friends there and have a drink with them afterwards.

If they are following the NACTO guidelines, then a buffered or protected bike lane would be the recommended treatment along Quincy St depending on the traffic volume. If the traffic volume is above 6k, which it may be, then a PBL would be warranted.

[zsionakides]

19. The “Why Couldn’t We Also Build a Trail Alongside the 95/395/495 Projects” Trail

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 191213 wrote:

2. I doubt any police force in any city or county in Virginia WITH a PBL would cite a cyclist for riding in the general travel lane near a PBL – probably even a slow cyclist. So it would only come to court in a civil case, I guess. If a driver hit a cyclist taking the lane adjacent to a PBL and their attorney chose to invoke 46.2
.

This, plus VA’s contributory negligence laws are what concern me. If you ride in the regular lane and get ran over by a reckless driver, does the single fact you weren’t in the PBL limit your ability to collect damages.

[zsionakides]

@secstate 191183 wrote:

Ha! Just wait for the pogo sticks!!

https://thenextweb.com/tech/2019/05/22/the-ceo-of-pogo-stick-sharing-startup-cangaroo-insists-his-company-isnt-a-hoax/

Or you can just walk.

My kids have one, and to say they have a high learning curve would be an understatement.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 191135 wrote:

I think (hope?) we all agree that Arlington cannot legally prohibit bicyclists from taking the lane on Quincy. However, that is precisely the message communicated by this sign. If you interpret this sign as an indication that motorists are forbidden to use the bike lane, then by symmetry the sign also indicates that bicyclists are forbidden to use the general lane.

Many cyclists will not want to use the separated facility. Signage like this could encourage harassment from aggressive or uninformed drivers, possibly including police. If such a sign is needed to keep motorists out of the bike lane, then the left side should be depicted for cars and bikes, with the right side for bikes only. Also it would be helpful to paint sharrows in the general travel lane to emphasize that message.

I think the law is unclear in VA if you would be allowed to use the regular travel lane for traveling. Bikes are supposed to stay to the right under VA law, unless impractical. To me, that means by law you probably have to use the bike lane, unless there was some issue that makes it impractical – e.g. turning left at some location along Quincy, the bike lane was blocked or flooded, etc.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 191120 wrote:

The critics are suggesting all these policies (and also the bike/ped chapter of the transportation master plan, and the sustainability plan) have been passed by stealth and with the support of the evil bike lobby. When someone from T&ES mentioned that the City has a goal to reduce VMT and auto commute mode share, about a dozen voices shouted “why?” Fun times.

(note the outspoken critics of bike/ped infra do NOT like the City proposal – it still makes too many changes to the road for their taste, and it does not keep Seminary 4 lanes for the entire length. The politics as this goes to Traffic and Parking Board, and then to Council, will be interesting)

Regardless if the critics like/dislike the laws, policies, and master plans, those are what planners are supposed to follow, not what some critics bring up as disliking current policy. If the critics don’t like the policy and laws on the books they need to advocate for changing those. In the meantime transportation planners need to follow current policy. If they don’t, that’s how bigger projects become tied up in court or otherwise.

If the city’s policy is to reduce VMT and have complete streets, then the design should be supporting that, which doesn’t appear to be the case here.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 191109 wrote:

Doesn’t painting sharrows automatically revoke Vision Zero policy?

Is the city even following it’s own policies in this design. If they aren’t, that would be the strongest place to start. Staff can try and accommodate outspoken critics of bike/pedestrian infrastructure, but if Vision Zero or Complete Streets policy state otherwise, this wouldn’t meet those policies.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 191090 wrote:

The County has the ability to make the ped signal come one whenever the traffic signal comes on, but still have the button there to activate the audio. So for most users, the button does nothing. For the vision impaired, the button tells the box to make a sound when that direction has green. Arlington has this in a few places, and this should be the set up on the W&OD.

This may be a best case scenario.

The beg buttons at Barcroft and on the 4MR trail at Walter Reed are inconsistent depending on whether the light cycle got triggered by cross traffic. I’m ok with the audio portion for visually impaired individuals, but the button triggers themselves need to go and the light be always on when the parallel street has a green light. Even better would be leading pedestrian indicators, particularly with the aggressive left turns from 4MR onto Walter Reed.

[Author]

Posts