Report a Comment

During the public feedback period I submitted testimony in favor of Option 2 with the caveat that bike lanes be added to parallel streets of I and L or M. As someone who lives only a few blocks from the transitway I feel this is the best option for the variety of stakeholders. It was also the recommendation of the The Golden Triangle BID.

The transitway passing lane in Option 3 sounds good on the surface but as David alluded to it introduces other problems. Specifically I don't believe commuter buses with long dwell times coexist well with eventual streetcar integration on on the transitway.

Having 3 lanes in each direction on either side of the transitway allows the maximum flexibility and makes sure ROW can be customized to the circumstances. The lane along the curb can be used for valet parking in some areas, commuter bus parking in other areas, taxi stand/delivery truck areas in other sections and in the remaining areas as parking during the non-rush hour periods.

Yes, that does leaves cycling out of the equation K Street. But as I've said I fully support bike infrastructure on the parallel one way streets. There is enough ROW on those one way streets to provide separated cycle-track ala 15th Street NW. That will be safer for the cyclists.

I've read cyclists says "it's not fair to relegate cyclists to a parallel street, some of us have destinations on K Street". Gimmie a freaking break. How many times on this blog have I heard people on this blog say that people who living or work within a mile of metro should take transit and not drive? How many times have I read comments that school children that live within a mile of school should walk rather than be picked up by bus? But cycling advocates with a destination of 16th & K would find it unacceptable to bike on a new I street cycletrack to 16th & I then walk their bike on the sidewalk to one block to 16th & K?

by Paul S on Dec 18, 2009 7:21 am • link • report