FCDOT to Propose Bike Lanes, Sharrows for Nearly Two Miles of Glade Drive

by Dave Emke April 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm 79 Comments

An April 27 meeting on safety improvements on Glade Drive will regard proposed bike lanes and sharrows along a nearly 2-mile stretch of the road.

Information released Friday morning by the Fairfax County Department of Transportation regarding the meeting says it will be to discuss proposals for Glade Drive between Glade Bank Way and Twin Branches Road. That’s the 1.93-mile portion of the road scheduled for repaving this year by the Virginia Department of Transportation.

“The purpose of the meeting will be to gather input on various proposals to improve traffic safety, bicycling and the pedestrian environment. There will be an open house at 6:30 p.m., and then representatives from FCDOT and VDOT will present plans for the project, which includes sharrows/shared lane markings, bike lanes, crosswalks and pedestrian improvements, starting at 7 p.m.”

FCDOT said recently that there are plans for 10 additional Capital Bikeshare stations in Reston, and information provided regarding the Glade Drive meeting shows three in that part of the community:

  • at South Lakes High School
  • near the intersection of South Lakes Drive and Soapstone Drive
  • near the intersection of Soapstone Drive and Glade Drive

Bike lanes already exist along Soapstone Drive.

A meeting last month regarding the potential addition of bike lanes and sharrows on Twin Branches Road, Colts Neck Road and North Shore Drive drew spirited debate among the community. FCDOT and bicyclists say the work would increase safety for all users of the road, while other residents are concerned about potential loss of parking spaces, increased congestion and possible safety hazards for drivers.

The FCDOT presentation from that meeting is available through the county website.

The Glade Drive meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 27 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Hunters Woods Elementary School (2401 Colts Neck Road).

Project map courtesy Fairfax County Department of Transportation

  • Brian

    I’d like to know exactly how much these bike lanes are costing us. Is there a cost analysis done on the usefulness of existing lanes?

    • Greg

      Here we go again…

    • Scott

      I went to the original mtg months ago. This is a line striping exercise. Cost is very minimal as the roads will be restriped anyway. This makes no endorsement of relative value which, personally I think is absurd, as a resident on this stretch of Glade. FCDOT said they don’t intend to remove parking. That means the only option is sharrows (aka bike logo) which the smart-nik, Leslie know types,think will make people abandon their cars and ride bikes more.

    • Greg

      “The cost of a five-foot bicycle lane can range from approximately $5,000 to $535,000 per mile, with an average cost around $130,000.”

      But, in Fairfax County, of course, we have to hire a director of bikes and install special traffic-light controllers and lots of signs just for the bikes.

      No street lights for anyone, though.

      • MakeRestonBetter

        The Bike Coordinator position and street lighting are separate issues. That position is part of making Fairfax County a more inviting place for companies that want to hire millenials to work for them. Companies that want to locate in this area are looking for things like bike-friendliness, especially in communities like ours that are near transit corridors. Street lights fall into a whole different category, especially since they involve VDOT, FCDOT, Dominion Power, RA (possibly) and DRB (possibly). If you can’t get lights where you want them, it’s not because bike infrastructure is ‘taking’ the money – it’s because there’s no political will to push through to provide it. Take your complaints to Supervisor Hudgins and hold her staff to answering you. Lobbing hate in comment sections is not productive or useful.

        • Greg

          Wrong. The bike DIRECTOR (as in six-figure salary + gold-plated costly benefits and pension) is directly related to bikes. S/he does nothing else and costs the county taxpayers. The money spent thusly cannot be spent on street lighting — all of which is paid for by county taxpayers but for the few areas under VDOT control under a decades-old “demonstration” project agreement that’s demonstrated nothing but failure.

          Your posting fake news in the comments section is not productive or useful nor is your judgmental arrogance toward others.

    • Jeff Anderson

      Brian, the other poster did a quick Google and came up w/ that # of installing lanes. The full report can be found here. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf.

      A lot of information to digest if you care too however bike lanes and sharrows added to Fairfax County roads leverage the VDOT paving program. Lots of economies of scale in doing so. There is no cost to Fairfax County taxpayers directly from it’s tax base. State taxes pay for road paving. The real cost of an extra line of paint is nearer the lower end of the range no doubt. Ask FCDOT at the meeting.

      Fairfax County is addressing it’s role in congestion (recent report showed DC region #2 in traffic woes) by not only spending it’s money in road issues but also with staff dedicated to pedestrian, bicycle and transit issues, much to many’s dismay. That last mile of transportation is key to reducing traffic. Adding wayfinding signs that provide both a quick and safe way to ride and traffic light controllers so cyclists don’t in turn get hammered for running a red light seem to rub folks the wrong way.

      • Greg

        Wrong again. Now you’ve pivoted from totally free to more fake news: “[t]here is no cost to Fairfax County taxpayers directly from it’s (sic) tax base. State taxes pay for road paving.” We assure you Commonwealth taxes are paid by Fairfax County taxpayers and especially by Fairfax County motorists. ALL taxes come from taxpayers. Imagine that!

        Then ignoring the high costs of a county employee, at the director level no less, and pivoting on the high cost of signs and controllers and special lane markings that have to be applied by hand. No machine paints “sharrows” and they are not applied it at no cost.

        And, mother of all, calling others out who present facts, from a bike organization at that, being rubbed the wrong way.

        Go figure!

        • Jeff Anderson

          What part don’t you get? Repaving is part of the VDOT budget not the Fairfax budget. Of course we all pay taxes but the repaving and painting come from state budgets and state taxes. Tax payers need to know this difference so they can lobby appropriately.

          How did I pivot? I was addressing your somewhat snarky comment about overhead and other costs stating a known fact that FCDOT isn’t just about cars.

          • Greg

            It’s not about repaving, Jeff. Bike lanes cost more to create and implement as do the wide array of other costly accommodations for bike lanes we’ve set forth here and in all the other posts as well as your own biking buddy groups have posted all over the interwebs. Wake up: it’s not free; it’s as high as $535,000 per mile EXTRA.

            And, Jeff, most of the Commonwealth’s (lesson for you: VA is not a state), income comes from Northern Virginia and especially Fairfax County taxpayers. So, yes, our redistributed income is being used to fund your bike lanes.

            All you do is pivot: for example, this is not about the redundant and wasteful FCDOT being just about cars (or hate or being rubbed the wrong way) it’s all about bike lane extra costs and always has been.

            It’s too bad you find facts about real and extra costs “snarky,” but facts they are and extra costs they absolutely are — and it’s disingenuous at best to pivot on them when the county is always crying poverty, despite always increasing taxes and revenue, and can’t afford to fund the basics.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Everyone reading the comments knows VA is officially a Commonwealth yet my use of State is when comparing Fairfax to VA. Good try but the lesson didn’t work. And unfortunately the Dillon rule (you are good at Google so look it up) creates this very situation we are discussing.

            And yeah…it is about repaving. Those asking questions are not going the extra mile of bicycle overhead, signage, and questioning the entire Transportation strategy of the County. They are asking about the real costs of adding a bike lane on their local streets and it’s effect. I am simply putting FCDOT’s comments made at the hearings in context of the Comp Plan and the County’s Transportation strategy. And I’m glad you see my argument that it’s the “Commonwealth’s” dollars and not the County’s dollars paying for the lanes. Finally !

            And it’s disingenuous to imply the County or the State is paying over $500k per mile of bike lane on Glade or anywhere in Fairfax County. The majority of bike lanes in the County have been the result of VDOT’s repaving schedule – paint costs.

            The “extra costs” of supporting a multi-modal transportation strategy are decisions the County and the tax payers have supported – be it by voting in their Supervisor, voting for Transportation Bonds, by speaking up at public meetings or as many did last week, speak at the Budget hearings. If you took your civic duty as serious as you do in the comments section of Reston Now, you had the opportunity to tell the Supervisors that the Bike/Ped program is, as you infer, a waste of money. Some Supervisors may agree but having attended a great many public meetings about transportation the past several years – the Supervisor’s have come to agree bicycling is part of that long term view with many citizens supporting such along with more pressing concerns of congestion, speeding on their streets, better crosswalks, etc.

            I echo the first posters comments: “It blows me away how anti pedestrian and anti bike south Reston residents are.”

          • Greg

            “Everyone reading the comments knows VA is officially a Commonwealth yet my use of State is when comparing Fairfax to VA.”

            Everyone but you, Jeff? It’s not “officially,” Jeff, it is. And, still, you pivot to mis capitalized “State.” For shame.

            You’ve provided nothing of substance, no references, no citations, no numbers, no analyses, and nothing that refutes anyone’s comments or concerns here or in any of your other postings elsewhere. For shame.

            It’s a proven fact that bike lanes cost money. Lots of money. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile. Money that no one has and should not be spent — for, once again, the county continually cries poverty and insists on raising taxes.

            For that matter, the Commonwealth of VA cries poverty in that there are hundreds of thousands without health care and we choose to fund bike lanes? For shame!

            Again with your pivots. Good luck, but don’t enter any debate competitions.

            And, please, mind your apostrophes.

          • Jeff Anderson

            You have achieved official troll status when you roll out the grammatical and civics lessons as a pivot away from the real issue. And yeah…..I have fat fingers when I type. Oh the humanity. 8^)

            The nuances of Commonwealth vs. State are subtle. In day to day discussion, it matters not.

            FWIW, I “vaguely” recall posting a link to a ‘study’ that you simply decided to “quote” (it was the first thing Google delivered for you) so as to get to the magical $500k bike lane cost. Have you posted any data of substance or referenced the Comp Plan. Do you want a link to that or are your Google skills up to snuff?

            The bike haters are clear in this article and the previous one that cyclists should be off the road and no monies should be spent on such. You are entitled to that opinion and welcome to lobby for such but realize the laws of the “Commonwealth” do allow such. Here’s a reference you seem to so badly desire from me: http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/programs/bk-laws.asp

            And now it’s a big pivot to the health care debate. Just wondering when you will invoke Godwin’s Law. 8^)

            Have a nice day.

          • Greg

            Jeff: Bike lanes cost LOTS OF MONEY. That’s the question Brian asked and we’ve answered. With lots of facts. From pro-bike organizations. You can’t pivot from facts.

            The county’s comprehensive plan is totally irrelevant to what bike lanes cost.

            All you have done is have pivoted yourself into the name-calling corner of shame. It has not served you or your 0.04% minority cause well.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Adding bikes lanes in Fairfax County DO NOT COST lots of money.

            Context is important to how decisions like this are made.

            Thanks again for the lessons. Not sure what they have to do with bike lanes but …..’whatever’.

          • Greg

            Brian (and Jeff) bike lanes cost a lot of money. Facts are facts. Always. And Jeff hasn’t, and can’t, refute any of them.

            Put into any context, other than that proffered by the 0.04% minority, bike lanes cost more. Much more.

            Reston: Enjoy your bike lanes, but be careful of the potholes especially at night since we can’t afford street lights.

            Don’t complain when your taxes go up because, of course, it all comes at no extra cost!

          • The Constitutionalist

            Can you explain to me the difference between lots of money and not lots of money?

            After that, can you explain to me the difference between spending your own money and spending mine?

          • Jeff Anderson

            Ask Greg.

  • RVA_101

    I can already sum up most of this website’s probable comments. You could even make a drinking game out of it:

    1. Wow, look at the county again trying to shove their liberal commie bike and walkable planning down our throats!!

    2. What about the roads and our parking and our cars??/?

    3. This is clearly the work of Her Greatness Adolf Hudgins. Down with her and the Board who conspire to take away our freedom of cars and parking!!

    4. It’s incredible how much tax dollar we waste on so called ”pedestrian and biking infrastructure” when each passing day I spend an extra 13 hours stuck in bumper to bumper on Sunset Hills. Shame on Fairfax!

    5. Can’t wait to vote these bozos out, do your part people! It’s time to take back our Reston we know and love!

    6. I’m leaving this cesspool! I hate this new ”mixed use high density anti car” philosophy! Can’t wait to get out and encourage everyone to do the same!!1!

    • dude

      7. It was the Mexicans and Moooslams that want the bikes so they can steal our jobs!

  • John Farrell

    Hey David

    None of the links show what is proposed for Glade Drive.

  • Mike M

    Kinda like a bridge to nowhere.

  • North of the toll road

    It blows me away how anti pedestrian and anti bike south Reston residents are. We here in the north would love bike lanes and pedestrian improvements.

    • MakeRestonBetter

      Many of us in Reston south of the toll road are working our butts off to get bike lanes and pedestrian improvements. There are just a few trolls who hang out here to naysay anything that would make the roads a) safer for people on bikes and b) less congested. I’m not sure whether those trolls live south of the toll road or even in Reston at all.

      • Greg

        You miss the point(s) — the major one being the bike lanes are not free.

        It’s dubious that bike lanes will do much, if anything, to reduce congestion. We would certainly argue that bike lanes will increase congestion since motorists have to drive slower and in less lane-space. Time will tell, won’t it?

        And, of course, name calling is childish and does nothing to bolster your standing with those with whom you disagree — regardless of where they do or don’t live.

      • John Farrell

        We’re fine with bike lanes that don’t take away through lanes or on-street parking.

        Can’t wait to see the first “road diet” meeting North of the Toll Road.

        • LisaR

          The stats on the Lawyers Road diet are pretty much solid. Road diets work, John. Learn to live with it.

          • Mike M

            They work for you? And how many years of data do we have?

          • Really.

            The Road Diet project on Lawyers Road helped reduce crashes in the corridor by 67 percent. It is considered so successful, the Federal Highway Administration put a photo of the road on the cover of it’s fall 2016 national publication. VDOT is quoted in the article, “If you build a Road Diet with a paving project, it can be done at almost no cost.”

          • Mike M

            Really? So, one mile of road in a just of couple of years experience serves as our guide? I guess someone is desperate to justify.

      • The Constitutionalist

        “just a few”

        Let’s put it to a municipal vote. Make certain on the ballot that voters know what they will lose and what they will gain.

        • Jeff Anderson

          That’s a ridiculous statement.

          • The Constitutionalist

            What is?

            Care to elaborate?

            Is, “just a few” ridiculous?

            Or is the notion of the tax-payer getting a choice as to where his/her money is spent ridiculous?

            Enlighten me.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Putting budget items on ballots.

          • The Constitutionalist

            I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.

            I suppose that means you’re good at it.

          • Dodge

            I believe this proposed lane painting would be done during the periodic repainting of the lanes, so the cost would be pretty minimal since they would be doing the work either way.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Cost isn’t just money.

            Think of all the externalities.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Voting on budget items is a ridiculous suggestion.

    • John Farrell

      When the spandex velodrome comes to North Reston riding 4-5 abreast obstructing commuters Tuesday evenings along with every marathon, tri-atholons and every other other road race on Sturday and Sunday mornings get back to us.

      • LisaR

        Nice, going with the spandex name calling again. Are you really out of arguments to make? These are worn out.

    • The Constitutionalist

      You don’t speak for all of us, friend.

  • Donald


    Seattle Bicycle Master Plan

    A “bikeable”city is one where people ride bicycles because it is a convenient, fun, safe, and healthy choice. It is a city in which people of all ages and abilities bicycle for any trip purpose. The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) aspires to encourage and accommodate more people to ride a bicycle. The BMP provides a blueprint to make it easier to decide to ride a bicycle. The vision of the BMP, which signifies an important shift in the way Seattle will accommodate people riding a bicycle, is:

    “Riding a bicycle is a comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for people of all ages and abilities.”

    There are several important themes embedded in the vision statement. First, the idea that bicycling is “comfortable” suggests it is safe, convenient, and an attractive travel option for a large number of people. “Integral to daily life in Seattle” means that bicycling is not a niche activity only for the fast and fearless riders, but is desirable for a wide variety of people and trip purposes, especially shorter trips. Finally, “people of all ages and abilities” is a key theme for the entire plan, meaning that the emphasis is on planning, designing, and building bicycle facilities that will be used by a wide range of people throughout the city. A central focus of this plan is to design and implement bicycle facilities that are safe and appropriate for riders of all ages and abilities.


    Over the next 20 years, Seattle will add 120,00 new people and 115,000 jobs within city limits. That is more growth than Seattle experienced over the last 20 years. Part of the strategy for accommodating this growth and its associated mobility needs will be bicycle investments and nurturing of the Seattle’s bicycle culture in a manner that purposefully benefits the city’s livability, affordability, public health, economic competitiveness, and natural environment.

    There are many reasons for making the case for investing in bicycling. Examples of the reasons range from:

    Safe streets for all users: Studies suggest that the risk of injury or death in a collision with motor vehicles declines as more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the number of people walking and biking appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of all roadway users. Greater safety for all road users may result from reaching a threshold of bicyclist volumes that compels motorists to drive more carefully. (refer to page 4 and 37 in the BMP more information)

    Health benefits: Physical activity is indisputably effective in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and other related chronic diseases. Public health professionals support active transportation as a means of improving these and other health outcomes related to the obesity epidemic. Bicycling can also curb health care costs. Mental health and academic achievement are also improved by walking and bicycling. One particular study of over 20,000 school-aged children found that by walking or biking to school advanced children’s mental alertness by half a school year. (refer to page 5 in the BMP for more information)

    Economic benefits: There are many ways to consider the economic benefits of increased levels of bicycling. An example as major employers – and talented employees – seek locations with good opportunities for active lifestyles and attractive urban amenities. Intercept surveys in Portland, OR sound that people arriving to retails stores on foot or by bicycle visit more frequently than those who drive and spend more money over the course of a month. Findings from New York City protected bicycle lane implementation have shown an increase in retail sales of up to 49% from locally-based businesses on 9th Ave , compared to 3% borough-wide. (refer to page 6 in the BMP for more information)

    Environmental benefits: Transportation, within the City of Seattle, is a significant source of air, water, and carbon pollution. Roadway transportation makes up 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle. By reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in fossil fuel burning vehicles will improve and protect Seattle’s natural environment. Expanding and enhancing active transportation opportunities are a highly cost-effective approach for meeting the goals of Seattle’s Climate Action Plan. (refer to page 6 in the BMP for more information)

    Space efficiency: There is simply very little space to add traffic lanes to meet increasing travel demands or reduce congestion in a growing population. Both vehicles and bicycles usually carry a single person, but bicycles take up much less space. Planning for bicycling and increasing the number of people riding bicycles will help optimize the use of limited urban space and create safer streets for all. Also, 41% of all trips (national average of personal trip lengths) are 0-3 miles in distance. There is great potential to increase the number of trips made by bicycle for these shorter trips. (refer to page 3 and 7 in the BMP for more information)

    Equity: 16% of Seattle households do not have a motor vehicle for their use. Providing transportation options for these people may include walking, riding a bike, taking transit or carpooling. Providing all ages and abilities bicycle infrastructure in parts of the city with lower car ownership will provide better transportation choice for people. (refer to page 7 and 8 in the BMP for more informfation)

    • Greg

      Reston is not Seattle. Far from it.

      • Donald

        Perhaps not, but I believe you will see similar bike plans in place for any community embracing sustainability. Until we see hover cars and private flying machines, multimodal transportation will be a necessity for Reston.

        • John Farrell

          80% of trips are in SOV and have been for 100+ years.

          FYI that’s before automobiles, i.e. when it was horses.

          • Donald

            Mr. Farrell,

            There were problems with the introduction of the automobile 100 plus years ago, but, municipalities and communities did their best to make improvements. We can still endeavor to continuously improve the process.

            “You might as well insist that every man in Chicago should wear a number,” complained Chicago Automobile Club President Charles Gray. “You wait until you catch a thief before you number him. … You want to number us like convicts. When we do wrong, let the police catch us.”

            “A motorist sued, saying he had a constitutional right to drive his car on the public streets, and in 1904 an Illinois appellate court said he was right.”


            “In the first decade of the 20th century there were no stop signs, warning signs, traffic lights, traffic cops, driver’s education, lane lines, street lighting, brake lights, driver’s licenses or posted speed limits. Our current method of making a left turn was not known, and drinking-and-driving was not considered a serious crime.”



          • The Constitutionalist

            Cycling is not a step forward. If it was, it would be widely embraced, as cars have been.

            I don’t think anyone should support a plan that will greatly inconvenience the VAST majority, in effort to make the VAST minority feel better.

          • Donald

            There are far more bicycles in the world than automobiles. And I truly believe that gap will continue to widen.

            It get’s better. You haven’t seen anything yet, when autonomous vehicles hit our streets.

            Car ownership and manufacturing are already starting to see a decline. The business model is changing.

            All in due time.


          • The Constitutionalist

            I disagree.

            This January we hit a new automobile sales record. The 7th year in a row.


            As you can see here, bike sales are not increasing over time.


            It’s not fair to compare bikes to automobiles. Keep in mind that as this area grows, people are now commuting farther and farther to work each day. Hardly an ideal scenario for cyclists. Embracing the cycling community is something that is being forced on the people, not something that is developing naturally on its own.

            My background says that if cycling is a superior mode of transportation, people will cycle and if enough people need bike lanes, they will be built.

            Unfortunately, we’re in a situation that, whether we need it or not, bike lanes will probably be built, much to your inconvenience and that of everyone else’s, and much to the lightening of your wallet.

            Just like metro.

          • Greg

            Speaking of metro: “The data show an average of 9,197 passengers entered the system at Wiehle Reston-East on an average weekday.”

            $6 billion + for those 9197 riders.

          • The Constitutionalist

            I wonder if they could afford the trip if we weren’t being forced into picking up the tab.

          • Donald

            “…At CES 2016, Ford CEO Mark Fields proclaimed that Ford is not just an automotive company: it is a mobility firm. While the auto industry is huge, Ford is now going after the even bigger global transportation industry, which it says weighs in at US$5.4 trillion in revenue.

            Mark had a firm grasp on where the industry is headed, and it isn’t a pretty picture. Car ownership could see a long-term reversal that even the rising middle class in Asia can’t stop. Networked transportation companies like Uber will become better, stronger, and supercharged even more by the rise of autonomous vehicles.

            Driving and car ownership will become the horseriding of tomorrow, a hobby and not a necessity. Car companies are in trouble if they don’t adapt to these trends…”



          • The Constitutionalist

            None of that has anything to do with cycling. Can we agree that transportation will change in the future? Yes. Is cycling the future? We shall see, but the signs say no.

          • Donald

            No, actually you missed the point(s) entirely. But, I think it best to stop this back and forth. For you, the bicycle is dead and nothing but a costly nuisance to this community — automobiles dominate, hence rule.

            So be it.

            God bless you,


          • The Constitutionalist

            I suppose if you won’t debate me on the facts, then we shouldn’t debate.

            Please don’t assume what cycling is to me. What I’m trying to do, is similar to what you’re trying to do with the Reston green space. I’m trying to prevent something from becoming a nuisance.

            What will make cycling a nuisance to me, is sacrificing a large portion of the road, which could be used to ease vehicle congestion, to the very small cycling community that exists here.

            You normally make wonderful points friend, and I respect your opinion greatly, but bike lanes are not a good use of resources.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Define large portion? You sound like the other guy who claims the lanes will cost $500k.

          • Greg

            And your position, that you’ve yet to support with anything but odd English, is that bike lanes are free. Or they are part of pavement. Or that the director of biking’s compensation is not a relevant cost.

            And, of course, I never said they will cost $500k. That figure came from your biking buddies.

          • Jeff Anderson

            You all have way too much time on your hands. It also doesn’t help any of your arguments when you go off topic and try to claim you are the grammar police in a comment section on a local website. Have a nice day .

          • The Constitutionalist

            Yet here you are, replying in this comment section…

          • Jeff Anderson

            I guess you told me then huh. 8^)

          • The Constitutionalist

            Is that a question or a statement?

          • Greg

            Another, albeit terrible, set of pivots. Don’t quit your day job…

          • Jeff Anderson

            You kind of had the original pivot: “No street lights for anyone, though.”

          • The Constitutionalist

            I would consider a large portion to be any amount of road that can or could be used for cars that is traded for a bike lane.

          • Mike M

            Biking is retro, Luddite.

          • LisaR

            You are entitled to your opinion. And you also appear to be entitled.

          • The Constitutionalist

            And you appear to be out of touch with reality.

            If being a driver of a vehicle that is often times irritated by his commute and that very commute is on the verge of being made longer because we want to appease to the hilariously small minority makes me entitled, so be it.

            It still makes me right.

        • Mike M

          So, you are on the holy mount of sustainability and you want to impose your righteousness upon the rest of us immoral fiends who dare drive in suburbia – the mode for which it was fundamentally designed/?

          • Donald

            I don’t think I stated anything like that. Sorry you interpreted it that way Mike.


      • John Farrell

        Yea, cause it snows hear and it gets really humid here and really cold here.

    • Jenny Gibbers

      Seattle has more sea plane commuters, ferry commuters, cyclists, pedestrians and motor cyclists. Its also somewhat influenced by new age thinkers, technocrats and environmentalists – in short a far cry from Reston.

  • pc

    Interesting debate but I do not see much discussion related related to this particular stretch of Glade Drive. I am an avid cyclist. Glade Drive is popular with cyclists because it is wide and not heavily traveled by cars. It is a residential street. There is absolutely no need for bike lanes here. There are homes directly on Glade. Will this impact the parking for those homeowners? If bike lanes are added, will the cyclists be restricted to riding only in the lanes? Today, during group rides, cyclists take up the entire width of the car lane. Will that no longer be allowed? Bike lanes have their place but this does not appear to be one of them.

    • Jeff Anderson

      There is no VA law that states cyclists must use a bike lane if one is available and no parking is to be removed.

      Part of the reason to add bike lanes / bike facilities is connectivity, choice and access. Trails are abundant in Reston albeit there is no trail or sidewalk from one end of Glade to the other so by adding a bike lane, it connects existing and other planned bike lanes.

      • pc

        HI Jeff, there actually are paved trails that connect one end of Glad to the other. Two options: .1. Follow the paved trail next to Glade starting at Twin Branches. It temporarily turns off of Glade at Timberhead but rejoins it near the small soccer field and continues on to Reston Parkway. 2. Take the Glade Stream Valley trail which parallels Glade between Twin Branches and Colts Neck. I would not encourage road bikers to take either sidewalk/trail because they are used by pedestrians (and road bikers typically ride at higher speeds on the roads). However, you mentioned trails and connectivity and it is indeed there….twice. Sorry, but I just cannot get behind this one. I am often a fan of bike lanes but not here.

        • Jeff Anderson

          I was thinking more of a trail akin to a sidewalk the entire length of Glade. But as you mention, these trails are not for road bikers. I assume that means anyone not out for a casual ride aka commuters for example. The trails are also very circuitous and may not get you where you want to go ultimately. And having bike lanes that don’t connect is’t a great solution either. A longer term view is suggested to see the benefits.

          • Greg

            The benefits to whom? The 0.002% of all citizens who commute by bike? Make due with what’s already there and slow down just like motorists do every day.

          • Jeff Anderson

            Did you just say “slow down just like motorists”? That’s a good one. You win the internet today.

        • Jeff Anderson

          Was out for a ride and took a look. Never really paid attention to the combo trail/sidewalk along the entire stretch. It’s great for casual / kids. I don’t see a cyclist who rides on the road really using that. Glad it’s there but it doesn’t meet the needs for the kind of connectivity the BMP calls for. Thanks for pointing it out.

      • Greg

        Choice and access for the 0.002%. Right.


Subscribe to our mailing list