Getting from Arlington to DC

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 181976 wrote:

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.

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

[bentbike33]

@Steve O 181994 wrote:

I dunno. Here’s its companion:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18485[/ATTACH]

(FYI – this was taken walking to Obama’s first inauguration. The TR Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic, making it possible for me to take this photo of the sign that I had been noticing for years.)

That one is on the same light pole as the “END” sign, but the Google Street View picture of it is obscured by something on the camera lens. An elaborate, but unfunny, practical joke.

[dasgeh]

@Yule 181982 wrote:

Google Map seems to show a straight shot, short crow-fly distance from the Netherlands Carillon area to the terminus of the now-disused (sadly wasted potential) downstream side of the bridge.

Yes, this is what WABA has been calling for, and what will (hopefully) make it into Arlington’s Bike Element.

@Yule 181982 wrote:

I can see a ‘veto’ on this dream-scenario proposal, even if a magic wand could be waved to put it in tomorrow at no cost, for several predictable reasons. it would put more DC-commuter bicycle traffic through the Iwo Jima Memorial area and potentially past Arlington Cemetery, and for the historic views issue others have raised (which I honestly don’t really understand; there are noisy and wide highways everywhere around these so-caled historic zones, do they not detract from all the historicness?). Then there is the strong belief, from some corners — not from the Arlington side but from federal people seems more likely — that bicycles are best dealt with by segregating them off onto relatively limited-access trails. (Finally, there is the potential NIMBY-type fear that criminally inclined from that side of the river could use such an easy walkable crossing to target people or homes in the high-rent residential area behind Iwo Jima and beyond in Arlington, an area that is, as of now, cocooned off to an extent by the GW Parkway as a natural wall)

These are not reasons that folks in Arlington resist bridges like this. In fact, TONS of people bike past Iwo Jima to use the 110 trail to get to Memorial Bridge. I did it last night.

The main reasons this won’t happen quickly are:
1) Cost.
2) “Viewshed.”
3) Cost.

[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.

[Steve O]

@zsionakides 182009 wrote:

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

As much as that railing feels uncomfortable, no one has ever been blown off their bike into the river–even on the windiest of days. One would have to actually leap off to get high enough to clear the railing.
I am not arguing that it’s good, just that the perception of the danger is higher than the reality.

I would love to see either or both side railings moved off the horizontal surface to widen the walkway/bikeway.

[Starduster]

@Steve O 181994 wrote:

I dunno. Here’s its companion:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18485[/ATTACH]

(FYI – this was taken walking to Obama’s first inauguration. The TR Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic, making it possible for me to take this photo of the sign that I had been noticing for years.)

To be realistic and simple about it- wide enough for 2 pedestrians = comfortably wide enough for 1 bike only. Explain to power accordingly.

[Author]

Posts