Posts in category Public Spaces

There have been plenty of DC Council debates where Wells was visibly and audibly exasperated with his colleagues for not passing legislation like the Mayor's recent crime bill. In fact, Wells has pushed strongly for some of the anti-crime legislation which I, along with many Councilmembers, worried might run roughshod over civil liberties.

In many areas, people are suspicious of bike lanes. Sometimes it's just an aversion to change. Sometimes it's a car-centric view. Sometimes people fear it's going to accelerate gentrification. We can't respond by deriding those who fear these innovations; we must educate and persuade. Wells has been a patient ambassador of this vision in often hostile forums.

Meanwhile, Robinson seems to have few actual concrete objections to any of Wells' initiatives. On the Kojo show, he said he supports the streetcar. Reader Bradley Soule, who attended a recent Ward 6 debate, said Wells had a detailed explanation for his transportation ideas, from the streetcar to Southwest Waterfront road capacity, but Robinson passed on the question.

Their biggest concrete policy difference between the two, across all issues, is whether to maintain the Shuttle-Bug bus. Soule wrote,

Kelvin Robinson claimed that after speaking with residents of the affected neighborhood, he felt the free service should be funded by the DC government in perpetuity because of issues with crime around the new Waterfront Station development at 4th and M SW.

Tommy Wells defended his position that the need for the shuttle, the closure of 4th Street between M & I during construction of Waterfront Station, had been resolved. He also voiced concern that if DC funded this special program, other neighborhoods would hold it up as an example for why they should get a similar service that the city could not afford.

But wait, Robinson says that Wells' transit initiatives are taking resources away from crime fighting, even initiatives like the bags and chickens that don't take any resources. But then he wants more transit in another area as a crimefighting tool. Maybe "livable, walkable" is actually making the ward safer.

A few commenters have criticized my brief characterization of Robinson's argument as using "vague racial innuendo." I agree that it may have been too facile to call it that, though I can't help but see subtle catcalls in his use of the extremely non-diverse Andy Griffith Show in this ad, or his refusal to clearly reject racial divides in response to Tom Sherwood's questions on the subject.

There is a divide in terms of who is excited about walkable neighborhoods and who is not, though that is more of an age and income level divide, and in DC it just so happens that at the moment, most younger, newer, and/or wealthier residents are white. But everyone needs to get to work, school or shopping, and bicycles, trains and buses are no faster or better depending on the color of your skin, or how long you've lived in DC.

The reason to vote against Kelvin Robinson has nothing to do with race, his, yours, the ward's, or anyone else's. It has everything to do with the fact that he's trying to set one improvement for the neighborhood against another, and in so doing set one side of the neighborhood against the other.

He's criticizing Wells for making improvements to the neighborhood, but when challenged, won't criticize the acutal improvements themselves. He could be talking about making the neighborhood more walkable and also doing more on crime. Instead, he's trying to convince some residents that walkability is their enemy.

Former Mayor Anthony Williams endorsed Robinson yesterday, presumably because Robinson was his chief of staff. But when Williams says he can "bring together divergent perspectives to advance the common goals of our Ward and our City," he must be looking only at Robinson's "United for a Stronger DC" slogan rather than the actual candidate who is putting a long-shot, divisive political strategy over common goals.

On Anacostia Park, within his first six months in office Fenty dismantled the Anacostia Waterfront Development Corporation, which had been charged with implementing the vision articulated in the Anacostia Framework Plan of 2003. He now wants to build 6 million square feet of commercial and residential development at Poplar Point, compared with the approximately 1 million square feet that had been negotiated during the Plan's development. Defending Poplar Point is the Sierra Club's top land-use priority.

Fenty put a good man, George Hawkins, at the helm of DDOE, but then repeatedly saddled the agency with bloated green-jobs programs that drove Hawkins and most of his senior staff crazy. Hawkins ultimately left for WASA (now DC Water).

Fenty also wouldn't allow Hawkins to express support for Tommy Wells' wildly-successful grocery bag fee bill, which passed the Council with nary a dissenting vote.

This year the Mayor instituted major funding cuts for DDOE — more than for any other agency. He then raided the supposedly sacrosanct "Tree Fund," transferring $539,000 of "dedicated" tree revenues into the General Fund.

As we approached the culmination of our campaign to force Congress to quit burning coal in the Capitol Power Plant, we approached the Mayor with an offer to put him in front of our campaign. We considered this a no-brainer given the obvious health impacts of burning tons of coal in the middle of the District, not to mention the global warming implications. But the Mayor wouldn't accept our offer despite the silver platter. Only weeks later, Congress caved in. Decades of coal-burning in downtown DC ended last year!

Similarly, reduced greenhouse gas emissions are the central goal of DC's new Sustainable Energy Utility. But Fenty recently proposed to reduce its budget by 85%. He then tried to slash the DC tax credits for solar energy installations.

Then the Mayor nominated Lori Lee — his wife's best friend — to chair the Public Service Commission, which regulates electricity production and sales. When I sat down with her she quickly revealed that she knew nothing of the subject, candidly admitting that she didn't even know what global warming is ("something to do with the ozone layer?") We managed to bump her down from Chair to Member.

The Mayor is also fighting us on the pending "MS4" stormwater discharge permit from EPA. We would like to see improvements in the draft permit, but generally support its rigor. The Administration is doing its best to weaken it, arguing that the suburbs should take the lead on water quality improvement.

Meanwhile, during his six years on the Council, Chairman Gray has always been a friend of the District's environmental movement. My records show that he has been a 100% green voter for his entire tenure.

Earlier this year Vince valiantly fended off Mayor Fenty's proposed cuts in next year's budget for sustainable energy development, rooftop solar, as well as basic funding for DDOE. This largely unheralded work came at a steep price, because other budget priorities had to be sacrificed. Granted, he wavered for hours on streetcar funding, but ultimately made the right call. This was, after all, a very tough budget year.

Vince has supported our campaign to save Klingle Valley since the days when Adrian was holding pro-road press conferences in the Valley itself. In responding to our recent political questionnaire, he distinguished himself from Mayor Fenty in his commitment to oppose over-the-top development at Poplar Point.

Gray talks to us. He attended the Sierra Club's Annual Dinner last Fall and gave a rousing address. This is a leader whom we can trust and fully expect to work with in the coming years.

For these and related reasons, the Sierra Club's leadership voted unanimously (10-0) to endorse Gray.

If we want Washington to take its rightful place alongside Seattle and San Francisco as one of America's most progressive environmental cities, we need an executive that will work hand-in-hand with our now progressive legislature. Gray has the vision; Fenty doesn't. And Gray will end the war-between-the-branches that has held DC in second gear for four years.

Some commenters also wondered if the change would save any time, considering congestion at 25th Street and the Whitehurst on-ramp. Overman said,

We tested travel times at different times of day and night and found that the Circulator reached the first stops on Wisconsin Avenue sooner in ALL cases by traveling on lower K versus getting stuck at traffic lights and congestion on M Street westbound. It is a travel time savings for customers heading up Wisconsin and also makes the entire line run smoother by reducing the end-to-end travel times so buses can continue back toward Union Station more quickly.

Why not run on lower K Street in both directions?

If M Street is overserved by all those bus routes running westbound, isn't it overserved in the eastbound direction as well? If serving K Street was intended in part to give employees at Washington Harbour easier transit access to their jobs, why make them walk up the 29th Street hill to catch the bus home?

Furthermore, running one-way routes on separate two-way streets is anything but user friendly. When unfamiliar riders get off a bus on a one-way street, they have an expectation that the return trip will start on a different street. If you get off a bus on a two-way street, on the other hand, most people will expect to board a return bus on the opposite side of the street within one or two blocks.

This will be particularly problematic because Circulator stop flags don't indicate routes and many stops don't have the spinning system maps. Even those that do may not get updated maps for some time.

The only direct answer I got from Overman was this:

The K Street routing was at the request of people/businesses on K Street who had service prior to 2008. The inbound K-outbound M service pattern was in effect since the Circulator began service and was only changed when we began to go up Wisconsin Avenue. People can always transfer at Wisconsin and M if they don't want to walk.

Based on this answer, it seems DDOT has fallen prey to the intractable "the way we've always done it" mistake. Circumstances have changed drastically since the Circulator last ran this route. At that time there was no other Circulator service on M Street. Now it is served in both directions by the the Rosslyn-Dupont route.

Why is there no stop on K Street west of Washington Circle?

Before last weekend, you could catch a Georgetown-bound Circulator at the Northeast corner of Penn and 24th St, or at the triangle park at Penn, 25th and L. With the new changes, the nearest stop in Foggy Bottom/West End is at Penn and 22nd Street. Then the bus shuts its doors and travels 8 blocks to 30th and K before it makes another stop.

There was no need for the Circulator to stop at both 24th and 25th Streets. One of the biggest advantages the Circulator offers over Metrobus is that it stops less frequently, cutting travel times. Still, the new distance between the last stop in Foggy Bottom and the first in Georgetown is now longer than the distance between many downtown Metro stops. But while cutting stops, DDOT should have taken the opportunity to eliminate 21st and Penn while keeping 22nd and Penn.

DDOT officials said that because of the traffic patterns, current parking spaces, and curb cuts it is impossible to have a bus stop on K Street west of Washington Circle. Traffic flow prevents the bus from stopping at the island between the circle and 24th Street. On the other side of 24th street, bus stops require 100 feet of "clear zone," so even if the parallel parking space on the K Street service road were removed, driveways break up the the curb every 50 feet or so. Street trees and shrubs also cause problems because of ADA accessibility guidelines.

There is, however, about 100 feet of curb along K Street just east of 25th street. It's unclear if the parking spaces on this section were removed whether a bus stop could be placed there, though, because about half of that curb is technically in the intersection. Overman said,

The only way to accomplish an accessible, safe stop is to eliminate most if not all of the parking along this section of roadway. If the community and ANC tell us they would rather have a bus stop than parking, DDOT is happy to accomplish this.

I'm unsure why a 100 foot bus stop would require removing most or all parking on a 400 foot block, and not just the 4 spaces nearest the 25th Street intersection. Still, removing any spaces certainly can pose a political problem. If you are a Foggy Bottom or West End resident, contact DDOT and ANC 2A to let them know that you support a new stop along K Street.

DDOT's cycle track installations, which rely on pedestrian signals, paint and flex-posts, have cost approximately $100,000 per mile. By comparison, the Ninth Avenue cycle track in New York, which includes dedicated signals, trees and pedestrian refuge islands, cost approximately $1.5 million per mile.

Remaining design issues

South of K Street, 15th Street carries many 30's line buses that make stops along the route of the planned cycle track. The plan doesn't show any accommodations for these bus stops. Will passengers wait in the cycle track for their buses? At the very least, loading and unloading passengers crossing the cycle track will conflict with cyclists. DDOT has not yet shown how they will address this issue.

A similar problem crops up south of E Street, where food and souvenir vendors have set up shop in the right-hand lane. The plan published online does not extend south of E Street, but it remains an issue to be addressed as DDOT extends the cycle track to Constitution Avenue.

Another new element is green paint in select areas. This will both make the lane more visible to turning motorists and clarify its function as a bike lane. This is an improvement many DC cyclists have long been anticipating, and an indication that federal interests such as the Commission of Fine Arts may be willing to be more flexible with DDOT on this project than they were with the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes.

Notably absent from the plans posted online are designs for the cycle track between G and H Streets. DDOT has indicated that their preferred route is along Pennsylvania Avenue and Madison Place near the White House. There are outstanding issues to be resolved between DDOT, the Secret Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, the National Park Service and other federal agencies over this section, which will likely receive treatments more akin to signage than to a cycle track. The exact nature of these issues was not explained by NCPC staff, although staff from NPS and NCPC have suggested that DDOT route the cycle track on H and 15th Streets instead of its current proposal along Lafayette Park.

Despite these remaining issues, progress already made, such as the relocation of the White House delivery queue lane from 15th Street to E Street, provides hope for a resolution. Also redacted from the plans posted online are designs for how the cycle track will interface with the complex intersection of W Street and New Hampshire Avenue.

Success of the existing cycle track

Since DDOT installed the cycle track, motorists have not been speeding as much on 15th Street. The 85th percentile speed was reduced from 35 mph in July 2009 to 28 mph in July 2010, and the percentage of motorists traveling above 25 mph has decreased from 66 percent to 26 percent.

As part of its assessment of the existing facility, DDOT surveyed cycle track users. While respondents ranked the yellow flex-post bollards as effective, they also view them as ugly. Flex-post on the planned cycle track will be installed at wider intervals than currently seen along the existing cycle track. DDOT Bicycle Program Manager Jim Sebastian has expressed confidence that fewer-and-far-between use of flex-post will be enough to keep out vehicles on this section.

In its presentation, DDOT indicated that while flex-post would be used in the short term for cycle track protection, long term goals include replacement of the flex-post with curbs, as is common in Montreal, or other permanent separation. DDOT has committed to NCPC that it will re-evaluate the effectiveness of flex-posts in one year and consult with NCPC and CFA in the search for alternatives.

With the new plan, it also looks like the 15th Street sharrows are on the way out, since they garnered mixed reviews among both cyclists and motorists. More than half of survey respondents said that removal of northbound sharrows would make driving on 15th Street "safer and/or more comfortable," while just under half of cyclists reported not feeling safe riding in the northbound sharrow lane.

In fact, 44 percent of cyclists said that they sometimes ride the wrong way in the cycle track, where they feel safer. DDOT observations showed that at a given moment 14 percent of all cycle track users are wrong-way cyclists. 81 percent of respondents supported conversion of the cycle track to two-way operation.

Since the installation of the existing cycle track, 33 percent of survey respondents report riding more and seven percent report using a bicycle for transportation when they had not done so before. DDOT observations at 15th and T have shown a 40 percent increase in the number of cyclists since the lane was installed and that 146 cyclists use the southbound lane during morning rush hours each day.

Cycle tracks have provided similar benefits to other cities around the world and within the United States. In New York, for example, cycle tracks have reduced injuries to pedestrians by up to 40 percent and injuries to cyclists by up to 57 percent, while seeing a 50 percent increase in the number of cyclists. We can expect similar gains along the length of 15th Street after the project is built this fall, and throughout much of downtown as cycle tracks are installed along M and L Streets later this year.

NCPC approved the 15th Street cycle track plans at its meeting on Thursday. The next hurdle for the proposal is review by CFA on September 12.