Alexandria's Draft Recommended Bicycle Network

As part of its Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update, the City of Alexandria created a Draft Recommended Bicycle Network Map.

It shows a bike trail along the eastern end of the old W&OD Trail railroad right of way, along with segments along Cameron Run and in the far northeast.

South of King, the network will add many miles of bikes lanes which are included on the full length of King, Duke, Braddock, Seminary, Howard, Jordan, Fort Williams Parkway, North Besuregard, Van Dorn, Prince, and a few other smaller roads. North of King, Glebe, Prince, and Cameron are the main bike lane routes. 

North of King, the network relies more on sharrows, with major corridors like Mount Vernon, Cameron Mills, N Columbus/Powhatan, Russell, Reid, Lafayette, Royal and Oronoco getting the shared street treatment. 

Comments

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

The big question for the enhanced bicycle corridors is which get PBL's and which get nothing more than white paint bike lanes, with or without buffers. Some of those are stroads where a simple bike lane will not do much for the interested but concerned, and even many enthused and confident will be wary of them.

BTW - the trail running east from the W&OD is four mile run trail, which already exists. Are you referring to something else?

[DE]

I'm not sure if the Four Mile Run trail is meant by the W&OD right-of-way. If I'm not mistaken, that trail on the south side of Four Mile Run, the Four Mile Run Park Trail, must be nearing completion. Some of it is done; I rode through there a couple of weeks back and the bridge over the creek (Sunnyside?) wasn't completed yet so I picked my way through some gravel and glass on my 23 slicks and used a parking lot and Mt. Vernon to get back to the main Four Mile Run trail.

Accessing the Four Mile Run trail via Mt. Vernon could be considered sketchy by some, traffic and curb wise. But facilities along Potomac Avenue are now very nice. The crazy zig-zag trail up from Four Mile Run is a blast--I ride up and down it whenever I go by, just for fun, even if I have no reason to go that way. But whoever designed it was mental if they thought substantial numbers of cyclists were going to successfully navigate it. Low-traffic use only.

[Wash_Cycle]

Not from the W&OD trail, but on the W&OD railroad's old right of way. South of Glebe.

[Uptowner]

Yeah, this is pretty weak. Most Bicycle Master Plans these days designate protected bike lanes and bicycle boulevards as part of a low-stress network. "Enhanced Bicycle Corridor" sounds deliberately vague. Guess the city doesn't have the political will to even plan for good bicycle infrastructure, much less implement it.

From the look of it, Alexandria will continue to be a mediocre place to ride a bicycle for the foreseeable future, and will consequently also continue to be stuck in traffic. Too bad.

[Alexandria Cyclist]

I wonder how the City plans to implement the "Enhanced Bicycle Corridor" on streets with continuous-speed highway ramps, such as Duke St - the scene of frequent pedestrian deaths - and King Street.

Don't know if they have the resources for it, but a median bike path on King could work if you provided protected crossings on both ends (Van Dorn and Park Center). The current median sidewalk is a joke.

Something which is hard to see is west-side access to Ft. Ward Park from Van Dorn. Tiny, but it would be nice.

I wonder if Braddock Road could use a protected bike lane between NVCC and King/Braddock/Quaker. My own observations is that it's never particularly busy, and there are long stretches with a lack of curb cuts (along Episcopal HS, Ft. Ward, etc)

They should make it a point to have a bike route for every cross-street which leads to a Metroway station between Delray and Jeff Davis Highway.

[Alexandria Cyclist]

Also, the lack of a proper road grid in the West End really comes through on planning documents such these.

I still wonder what they were thinking when planning the West End. The lack of a grid needlessly forces so much auto/bike/ped volume onto major arteries like King, Braddock.

[T]

Help me out in deciphering it. Is it saying they're going to make a trail along Abingdon by the defunct power plant and then also along that rail line (how will people cross this spot??)? If so, I think that's a very positive development. I'll have to look at the rest soon when I have more time.

[Alexandria Cyclist]

@T

I think making a two-way MUP on the east side of the GWP has been a goal of the City, since Abingdon is one-way there.

"also along that rail line (how will people cross this spot??)? "

You've already got the lights needed for a HAWK light, plus you've got the bells too. Coolest crossing ever.

[DE]

The map is a bit confusing (it resolves better through the link, btw). How is a "shared roadway" any different than most roadways that aren't restricted access? By that measure, most of the roads on the map could be in orange as shared roadways, yet are not. "Enhanced bicycle corridor" really does need to be defined. And I would assume dashed lines are in process or planned, but some things that are dashed are current, so that might not be the case, yet I see no other difference between, for instance, a dashed black line trail and a solid black line trail. The solid lines are under an "Existing Facilities" column, but the other column doesn't say "Planned," it says "Bike Facility Group."

I don't think I'm much stupider than the average schmuck, but it's hard to make sense of it. The key needs its own key. The report does not seem to discuss it.

[cyclistinthecity]

I would recommend to those debating this and reading the reports to examine the definition of an 'Enhanced Bicycle Corridor' in the documentation of this plan. What this can be is anything ranging from a painted contraflow bike lane to a post protected cycletrack. This certainly gives the city plenty of leeway to do a half assed job and claim progress. We'll see some paint, only people like me using those facilities, everyone else on the sidewalks, and no improvement in conditions.

I don't expect this planning process to accomplish very much. I know some people on the committee who have similar expectations. Let's hope we're wrong.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

I was under the impression that the final plan would also include at least some general guidelines on when a PBL is prefered over a painted bike lane. With the caveat that the speficic possibilities of each corridor will need to be addressed. Which could mean future fights over what goes on particular corridors.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

DE

A shared roadway is a roadway with a painted sharrows, IIUC.

Washcycle - I believe that is the extended trail in the Oakville triangle plan.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

Also, DE, where do you see something dashed that is current?

I think they did not say "planned" because until this recommended network is approved, they are not "planned". IE this is a draft by the ad hoc commision, that is all. Then it needs to get council approval, and then T&ES will need to plan specific facilities.

[DE]

I thought that a shared roadway would be a sharrow, but they also have sharrows in the key, which implies to me that they are separate things.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

well all the existing items in the key have "normal" names - bike lane, sharrows, and trail. Two of the three dashed line equivalents have fancy names. Enhanced bike corridor is different from bike lane, because it COULD be a PBL (though in the case of Beauregard I think they are contemplating a multi use sidepath) I am not sure what is like a sharrows, but isn't a sharrow - I guess they mean a sharrows but with more signage or something like that - more in the direction of a bike boulevard?

[DE]

I can't get enough resolution with the map to be sure, but some of the trails in the northeast portion look to be completed, but perhaps they weren't at the date of this map, or maybe they aren't officially. Dashed shared roadways to me are current because all roadways that aren't limited access are shared roadways. In any case, the column heading doesn't state that they're in process; it states "Bicycle Facility Group." The right column is also made up of bicycle facilities, just as the left, so what's the distinction? I guess it's existing vs. unfinished, but it doesn't say so.

Not the end of the world, but not clear. Too many years of technical editing on my part, perhaps, and querying items that aren't clear that might be obvious to others looking at them in a different way. Really, if I were not an interested party, I wouldn't have bothered with it once I saw that it wasn't clear.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

"Dashed shared roadways to me are current because all roadways that aren't limited access are shared roadways."

If they are using that meaning, then its a radical reduction in cycling rights, since many streets that are currently eminentaly bikeable would now be off limits to bikes. Including quiet residential streets, cul de sacs, etc. Technical editing aside, I think its pretty clear that is not what they mean by shared roadway. They mean a road with a painted sharrows, or maybe a painted sharrows plus some other signage or traffic calming.

"In any case, the column heading doesn't state that they're in process; it states "Bicycle Facility Group.""

Right, but the ad hoc commission and anyone following it knows that they are looking at a new plan for new facilities, and the map title says it is a draft recommended network. Now I know that a quality document should allow, within reason, for a map or chart to be pulled out of context and still be completely understandable - but I am not sure the support resources for the Ad Hoc commission process are that extensive.

[Jonathan Krall]

From a comment above: "I was under the impression that the final plan would also include at least some general guidelines on when a PBL is prefered over a painted bike lane. With the caveat that the speficic possibilities of each corridor will need to be addressed. Which could mean future fights over what goes on particular corridors. "

In addition to creating a new Bike/Ped Plan, city staff and/or consultants is supposed to be creating Complete Streets Guidelines. The Guidelines are a separate project that somehow got attached to the Bike/Ped Plan effort. I don't recall how that happened (maybe both were written into the same contract with the consultants?), but they are two separate documents.

[Jonathan Krall]

It may be worth mentioning that the most recent plans for Beauregard, Van Dorn, and Eisenhower "enhanced bike corridors" all specify sidepaths, which are just slightly-widened sidewalks.

You know that guy who pulls up behind you in a car and yells "get on the sidewalk!" That's who seems to be running the show in Alexandria these days.

I ****ing hate sidepaths.

[washcycle]

Not all sidepaths are bad. The Custis Trail and Mt Vernon Trail are both basically sidepaths after all.

If it's asphalt with few curb cuts, it's better than just a wide sidewalk. It all depends on execution.

[cyclistinthecity]

"If it's asphalt with few curb cuts, it's better than just a wide sidewalk. It all depends on execution."

That will be a problem in the corridors Jonathan describes. Being that those areas are to be redeveloped as more urban areas, there will be lots of intersections, curb cuts, and other conflict points.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

The existing sidepath on Eisenhower at least, has almost no curb cuts for most of its length, because of its proximity to Cameron Run. I agree though that in many other places curb cuts will be problematic. There may be some sections of Beauregard where the new development will not have curb cuts right onto Beauregard, but some of the existing development does, and also on Van Dorn.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

And curb cuts are not the only problem with sidepaths. Washcycle mentions MVT and Custis. FourMileRunTrail is also a sidepath basically, and we had one pedestrian die there, an incident that has been used against cycling across the region for several years. We have regular conflicts on MVT all the time. Its not pretty, really, but its what we've got.

Eisenhower MUP is lightly used. But Beauregard is a corridor targeted for densification, and for a BRT line. A Beuaregard MUP is going to have lots of pedestrians, if development and transit work as intended. To have the same path be the main NS bike route through West Alexandria is asking for trouble.

[cyclistinthecity]

"The existing sidepath on Eisenhower at least, has almost no curb cuts for most of its length, because of its proximity to Cameron Run. "

The place where conflicts on Eisenhower exist are by the hotels near bridge over Telegraph Rd where there are three curb cuts for driveways. One of those driveways is a nightmare because someone pulling out of them in their car doesn't have good sightlines to the right or left until they get right up close to the path. The other two aren't terrible however they are still ripe for collisions. With clear observations like these, you have to wonder what city staff are thinking making similar proposals elsewhere.

[washcycle]

I don't think the Four Mile Run trail crash had anything to do with it being a sidepath. It's just the kind of thing that happens on MUPs.

[DE]

In a perfect world with unlimited space, you could build separate paths for cyclists and pedestrians. I've seen them in Munich, and there's an area with them along the boardwalk in Virginia Beach. They still have the problems of pedestrians unfamiliar with them wandering into them.

It seems like we feel we can't do it here because there's not enough room left for cars, but if they can do it in Munich...

Given that, I still prefer MUPs to most of the bike lanes in the area as they are currently built. The speed differential between a 45-mph speeding car and a cyclist is not safe.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

Washcycle

That is my point. A MUP with lots of pedestrians is problematic. Putting cyclist in a PBL is a superior choice, for cyclists of different levels, and also for pedestrians.

DE

Yes, if the choice is nothing more than a conventional white painted bike lane on a high speed stroad, such as Beauregard or Van Dorn, a MUP is probably the better option for most cyclists and potential cyclists. What I would like to see, and I think many others would like to see for Beauregard, Van Dorn, and the parts of Eisenhower not served by the existing MUP, are protected bike lanes - at least a painted buffer plus breakaway barriers, or better, more substantial protection.

[DE]

I'd like to see more of them as well. Something along Route 1 would be nice. I was trying to figure out how to get to work and back from my car dealer in the Hybia Valley. Route 1 as is is not an option, so I was thinking Mount Vernon Trail to Morningside Drive to 626, which Google shows as having bike lines on some portions, but those miles start to add up and there are still some problematic stretches.

It's hard to imagine Route 1 being made comfortable for cyclists.