Wednesday, August 11, 2010
 

New bike lanes on Wakefield Chapel Road - Part II

Today we had a chance to check out the new bike lanes on Wakefield Chapel Road. As you can see from the map on the right, the extent of the bike lanes is a little less than 1/2 the length of the road. On the south, from Braddock Rd to Queen Elizabeth Blvd there is limited right of way and the same is true from Pulley Ct to Little River Turnpike/Route 236 in the north.

We were mostly interested to see if the striped lanes placed cyclists in the door zone. On the southern end of the bike lane section the parking lane and bike lane both seem substandard. We didn't have a tape measure, but pacing off the distances it seemed like the parking lane was only 6 feet from the edge of the gutter pan and the bike lane was 4 feet. As we summarize in the newly published Guide to Reviewing Public Road Design and Bicycling Accommodations for Virginia Bicycling Advocates, "Bike lane width adjacent to narrow parking lane: 6-7 feet." The extra width gives cyclists room to maneuver. I believe the AASHTO guidance for parking lanes is for 7-8 feet in residential areas.

As you can see from the first photo with the white pickup truck, there is very little room for parking and the bike lane, and a cyclist riding in the bike lane would clearly be in the door zone. The photo was taken looking south. The truck's right wheel is in the gutter plan and the truck just barely fits within the parking space. An open door would extend nearly across the full width of the bike lane. In this case a cyclist should either ride on the far outside edge of the bike lane or take the lane to avoid being put into a dangerous position.

The second photo, with the van, is particularly interesting. The van is parked far to the right, and yet the bike lane striping couldn't be done with it parked there. The inside bike lane strip stops at the bottom of the photo and continues just past the van. We assume the van was there when the striping was done.

The north section without bike lanes consists of a four lane section with a median. Cyclists can easily ride in the outer lane, taking the lane and motorists can pass in the inner lane.

The worst place is between the end of the bike lanes at Pulley Ct and the start of the four lane section. There's a small rise in the road where it's narrow and cyclists will be going slow with no choice but to take the lane. The last photo is looking north at the end of the bike lane with the small hill in the distance. Even at midday there was a lot of traffic. This would be a good location for shared lane markings.

The striping needs to be tweaked. Unfortunately it's not uncommon for problems like this to occur, especially when a community is getting experience placing bike lanes. The worst problem is the very narrow parking lane and bike lane in the southern section. It might be wise to remove the bike lanes altogether and replace them with shared lane markings, showing cyclists where they should place themselves when riding next to parked cars. This will likely be a topic of discussion at the next FABB meeting on Wed., August 18 at 7:30pm at Patrick Henry Library in Vienna.

Labels: ,

Comments:
I am glad I found this explination of the Wakefield Chapel baike lane. As a bike rider in the area, I am confused about the benifit of this project. It appears to be the bike lane to no where, as it does not link anything. As a tax payer, I really question the wisdom of this project.
bill
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007