Likes Likes:  134
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
ELITE ELITE:  0
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83

Thread: NOVA Parks Hearing in e-bikes

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

    I wish I had a 20 lb regular bike. In fact I ride a bike closer to 30lbs and most of my miles I am riding with a backpack carrying clothes, and sometimes lunch, and sometimes papers. Though I guess differences in rider weight matter more. Unless there is a new physics where only the weight of the bike itself matters.


    E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.


    have you ever actually done advocacy for a new cycle track? One that involves either taking away a genral travel lane, or parking? here are some quotes

    We are not a quaint village where everyone can bike to work and shopping centers.

    Seminary is a major hub to not only the highway, but to the hospital and the Mark Center, all of which are economic drivers for the city and we ant to stifle that for a couple of yuppies that want to show off their $5k bianchi bicycles...


    It looks like we are devoting a lot of resources to bike lanes, while almost no one appears to be commuting by bike in hilly West Alexandria.

    If I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned the lack of riders as a reason to oppose complete streets (even when the road diet would largely improve safety for walkers and drivers) I would be well on my way to that 20 lb Bianchi.

    We need more folks in the bike lanes we have. More acoustic bikes, more ebikes, more scooters, more hoverboards, whatever. And if that means ALSO allowing them on trails, so be it. I will listen to advice from people on the need for more bike lanes for ebikes (while banning them from trails) from folks who have been in the trenches fighting for bike infra.
    The issue with only focusing on increasing usage of the existing trails is they don't go anywhere near enough places to bump up the biking percentage of commuters, even throwing e-bikes in the mix. We need to build a lot more safe, separated on-road biking facilities to get anywhere with increasing bike usage.

    I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.

  2. #72
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    The issue with only focusing on increasing usage of the existing trails is they don't go anywhere near enough places to bump up the biking percentage of commuters, even throwing e-bikes in the mix. We need to build a lot more safe, separated on-road biking facilities to get anywhere with increasing bike usage.

    I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.

    The trails matter to increase the number of commuters because PARTS of the trails are key PARTS of commutes.

    I live in NW Alexandria and work in SE DC near the Navy Yard. The first mile of my commute (to Shirlington) is streets. The last two miles or so are streets and in street bike lanes (and recently a sidewalk adjacent PBL). But the largest piece of it is the 4MRT and the MVT. There is a kinda sorta alternative to the MVT - Eads Street - though even that requires getting on the MVT to access the bridge - but no great (IMO) alternative to the 4MRT (lets not talk about Army Navy right now).

    And there are definitely places where MUTs are MORE central to finding a low stress route than in the case of my commute.

    If you have good suggestions for new MUTs or Bike lanes (not sure what you mean by cyclepaths?) please share them. At least in Alexandria T&ES with the help of BPAC has been good at finding low hanging fruit. The obstacles we find are not only parking, but resistance to road diets that remove travel lanes, and, in the case of off street infra, issues with cost and land. Again, could you tell me about your actual experience doing advocacy? I mean attending BAC meetings, talking to govt officials both elected and staff, etc, not posting things in bike forums.

  3. Likes buschwacker, dasgeh, ChristoB50 liked this post
  4. #73
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Henry IV, Part 1

    My liege, I did deny no prisoners.
    But I remember, when the fight was done,
    When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
    Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
    Came there a certain lord, neat, and trimly dress'd,
    Fresh as a bridegroom; and his chin new reap'd
    Show'd like a stubble-land at harvest-home;
    He was perfumed like a milliner;
    And 'twixt his finger and his thumb he held
    A pouncet-box, which ever and anon
    He gave his nose and took't away again;
    Who therewith angry, when it next came there,
    Took it in snuff; and still he smiled and talk'd,
    And as the soldiers bore dead bodies by,
    He call'd them untaught knaves, unmannerly,
    To bring a slovenly unhandsome corse
    Betwixt the wind and his nobility.
    With many holiday and lady terms
    He question'd me; amongst the rest, demanded
    My prisoners in your majesty's behalf.
    I then, all smarting with my wounds being cold,
    To be so pester'd with a popinjay,
    Out of my grief and my impatience,
    Answer'd neglectingly I know not what,
    He should or he should not; for he made me mad
    To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
    And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
    Of guns and drums and wounds,--God save the mark!--
    And telling me the sovereign'st thing on earth
    Was parmaceti for an inward bruise;
    And that it was great pity, so it was,
    This villanous salt-petre should be digg'd
    Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
    Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
    So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
    He would himself have been a soldier.
    This bald unjointed chat of his, my lord,
    I answer'd indirectly, as I said;
    And I beseech you, let not his report
    Come current for an accusation
    Betwixt my love and your high majesty.

  5. #74
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,660
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.
    Please, SPEAK UP. What outside of the box thinking is missing from Arlington's draft Bike Element? Is it more trails? Because the "environmental" lobby is already gearing up to fight any new trail and any trail widening. Is it more PBLs on the major arterials (Lee, Mason, Glebe, Wilson)? Because County staff fought against this (because parking) and what's in there (building bike facilities that meet NACTO guidelines) is the best we could get -- unless the public will stand up and say they want better. What else?

    If you speak up here, people who VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME to work on these sorts of things are listening and will take suggestions back. If you write in, your comments will be included in the summaries and taken into consideration.

    If you stew silently about how you have better ideas, nothing will happen.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    Please, SPEAK UP. What outside of the box thinking is missing from Arlington's draft Bike Element? Is it more trails? Because the "environmental" lobby is already gearing up to fight any new trail and any trail widening. Is it more PBLs on the major arterials (Lee, Mason, Glebe, Wilson)? Because County staff fought against this (because parking) and what's in there (building bike facilities that meet NACTO guidelines) is the best we could get -- unless the public will stand up and say they want better. What else?

    If you speak up here, people who VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME to work on these sorts of things are listening and will take suggestions back. If you write in, your comments will be included in the summaries and taken into consideration.

    If you stew silently about how you have better ideas, nothing will happen.
    I submitted comments to the master plan, and submit comments on other projects as well. Most of my comments on the master plan were around the types of facilities being proposed, as very few of them actually meet NACTO guidelines. There are better designs used in other countries that could be adopted and provide safer bike facilities without sacrificing auto mobility and parking. The use of sharrows and narrow striped lanes next to park cars should not be endorsed by any advocacy group and should not be put on maps as "safe" bike routes, when they are not safe for the majority of citizens. The only way to get bike share up in any significant amount is end to end protected facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities; not just trails, and not bike lanes to nowhere.

  7. Likes Judd, buschwacker, dasgeh liked this post
  8. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

    E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.
    If conservation of energy is the point of this quoted comment, why be concerned about the difference between bike and ebike riders (50#x16mph=800) and suggest the solution is to mix e-bikers up with cars where the difference is 4000#x35mph=140,000.

    F=MA so yes, a heavier bike at a higher speed is going to require more force to stop or project more energy onto another moving object. The relative difference in force required to stop different riders at twice the speed is the same as twice the mass. For safety we should weigh each cyclist and restrict their speed accordingly?
    Last edited by SolarBikeCar; 02-16-2019 at 11:29 AM.

  9. Likes dasgeh liked this post
  10. #77
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    I submitted comments to the master plan, and submit comments on other projects as well. Most of my comments on the master plan were around the types of facilities being proposed, as very few of them actually meet NACTO guidelines. There are better designs used in other countries that could be adopted and provide safer bike facilities without sacrificing auto mobility and parking. The use of sharrows and narrow striped lanes next to park cars should not be endorsed by any advocacy group and should not be put on maps as "safe" bike routes, when they are not safe for the majority of citizens. The only way to get bike share up in any significant amount is end to end protected facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities; not just trails, and not bike lanes to nowhere.
    Please be so kind as to read the Shakespeare quote above.. Submitting comments is great and I encourage it but it's not exactly being in the trenches.

    You want parking protected bike lanes in place of door zone lanes? So do I and so does every bike advocate I know. But there are places where a door zone bike lane fits but a pbl does not. Because gutters can be under parking, but not part of a bike lane. Also because as I hope you agree, a parking protected bike lane requires day lighting at intersections to be safe. But some areas on street parking is scarce. Now we can say get rid of parking anyway. Have you ever gotten in the face of some guy who doesn't bike and thinks driving is freedom and has never read "The High Price of Free Parking" and told him that parking is going to get harder for the sake of cyclists? Whom he thinks are either A. Reckless scofflaws B Entitled elitist hipsters or C. Simply nonexistent

    Meanwhile door zone bike lanes are more attractive to most riders than a street with no bike infra. And just as safe 8n places with little parking turnover.

    We could also discuss the locations and utility of sharrows but unless you're going to join those of us in the trenches I'm not sure I want to bother.
    Last edited by lordofthemark; 02-16-2019 at 02:53 PM.

  11. Likes buschwacker, dasgeh liked this post
  12. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    You want parking protected bike lanes in place of door zone lanes? So do I and so does every bike advocate I know. But there are places where a door zone bike lane fits but a pbl does not. Because gutters can be under parking, but not part of a bike lane. Also because as I hope you agree, a parking protected bike lane requires day lighting at intersections to be safe. But some areas on street parking is scarce. Now we can say get rid of parking anyway. Have you ever gotten in the face of some guy who doesn't bike and thinks driving is freedom and has never read "The High Price of Free Parking" and told him that parking is going to get harder for the sake of cyclists? Whom he thinks are either A. Reckless scofflaws B Entitled elitist hipsters or C. Simply nonexistent
    I actually agree with much of the resistance to removing parking, though more in residential areas. This can have real effects on real estate value and its not unreasonable for property owners to want to protect those values. However in areas such as Ballston, Crystal City, and Pentagon City with large volumes of off-street and low priced hourly parking, it's quite reasonable to pull on-street spots to put in bike ways. In residential areas where traffic volumes are much lower, I believe there is a lot of opportunity in re-striping travel lanes or moving some of the two-way streets to one-way to accommodate safe biking facilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    Meanwhile door zone bike lanes are more attractive to most riders than a street with no bike infra. And just as safe 8n places with little parking turnover.
    I don't ride within the door zone of bike lanes, and highly discourage others from doing it. The risk is too high of getting hit, thrown into the travel lanes, and ran over by a car, even in low parking turnover areas. You're much safer just taking the lane and making cars pass you correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    We could also discuss the locations and utility of sharrows but unless you're going to join those of us in the trenches I'm not sure I want to bother.
    I'm not against sharrows as a communication's reminder tool to drivers that cyclists are about. What I'm against is using sharrows to create "safe" bike routes, when they are absolutely not safe for anyone who is not an experienced rider. Even worse is putting the sharrow routes on the bike comfort map and advertising the routes as somewhat comfortable routes for any age. A couple examples are roads such as Walter Reed or Army Navy Drive which have speed limits of 30mph with a lot of commuter traffic, and a lot of drivers going well in excess of those speed limits.

  13. #79
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You seem to be unaware that door zone bike lanes are often implemented by local Dots to calm traffic, largely for the benefit of pedestrians. Who are far more numerous than riders, as one learns when doing advocacy. I will not argue here about the studies which show streets with door zone bike lanes no more dangerous for riders than streets with no treatment, but will simply note that IME on streets with no bike infra and heavy traffic most inexperienced riders will ride in the door zone anyway (and parkers are less likely to look for a rider when there is no bike lane) if they will ride at all.

    If your concern is maps there are opportunities in advocacy work to talk about maps - my concern is more with what gets built.

    But from my own experience one person buying an ebike and using it every day (enabled by being able to make part of their ride on MUTs) does more for safe on Street accommodations than pages and pages of nattering on this forum.

  14. Likes buschwacker, Dewey, ChristoB50 liked this post
  15. #80
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,660
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    I submitted comments to the master plan, and submit comments on other projects as well. Most of my comments on the master plan were around the types of facilities being proposed, as very few of them actually meet NACTO guidelines. There are better designs used in other countries that could be adopted and provide safer bike facilities without sacrificing auto mobility and parking. The use of sharrows and narrow striped lanes next to park cars should not be endorsed by any advocacy group and should not be put on maps as "safe" bike routes, when they are not safe for the majority of citizens. The only way to get bike share up in any significant amount is end to end protected facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities; not just trails, and not bike lanes to nowhere.
    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".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •