Posts by David C.

16th Street/U Street New Hampshire

• Motor vehicle intersection [Level of Service (LOS)] remained the same before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Fewer than 20% of cyclists are using the bike box and bike signal as intended to cross the intersection.
  
• 82% of cyclists are stopping in the crosswalk instead of the bike box as intended. Though the bike box may still be effective at giving separation as only 15% of cars are stopping in it.
  
• 13% of Cyclists using the bike signal encounter motor vehicles who are running the red, but are able to navigate through.
  
• There was 1 more bicycle crash (5 vs. 4) at the intersection in the year after the installation than before.

Pennsylvania Ave cycletrack

• Bicycle volume doubled after the cycletrack was installed.
  
• Arterial LOS was similar for motor vehicles on Pennsylvania Avenue before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Danish Bicycle LOS and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI) analyses all show significantly improved operations for cyclists with the median bike facilities.
  
• Signal timing for bicycles generally works well between 10th Street and 15th Street, but results in large delays to cyclists between 3rd Street and 9th Street.
  
• Bike crashes went up 80% after the bike lanes went in (so, not as much as bike traffic went up).
  An average of 42 percent of cyclists arriving on a red signal violated the signal.
  
• Most cyclists stopping at red lights stop in the crosswalk or median area rather than behind the white stop bar.

15th Street cycletrack

• After the two-way cycle track was installed, there was a 205 percent increase in bicycle volumes (from before conditions) between P Street and Church Street during the p.m. peak hour, and there was a 272 percent increase in bicyclist volumes (from before conditions) between T Street and Swann Street during the p.m. peak hour
  
• Motor vehicle counts show that volumes are up a little bit on 15th Street before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Motor vehicle LOS was basically the same after the cycletrack was installed.
  
• Bicyclists experience less delay on 15th Street between lower E Street and I Street than between I Street and U Street.
  
• The number or crashes again grew, but not as fast as the number of cyclists did (so crash per cyclist went down).
  
• There are potential issues with the existing design, which uses the pedestrian signal to control cyclist movements.
  
• Over 40 percent of cyclists were observed running red lights.
  
• There are now fewer cyclists on the sidewalk.

DDOT is hosting a public meeting on Thursday, May 3, to present more details of the study and discuss the proposed L Street cycletrack from 25th to 12th Streets, NW. The meeting is at the Reeves Center, at the corner of 14th and U, in the 2nd floor community room.

A version of this article was originally posted at TheWashCycle.

The highlight of the project is the Metropolitan Branch Trail Atrium (circled in red above).

This three story space will create a bike-friendly entrance to the project unlike anything in the DC area. It will include a paved and signed entrance to the atrium which includes LED lighting and automatic doors that will allow cyclist to ride into the atrium. There will be an automatic bike pump for maintenance; a water fountain; a refreshment area with vending machines, tables and chairs; indoor bike parking and a natural ventilation system to supplement the HVAC system in appropriate seasons.

WABA has been invited to provide programming for the space and will be allowed to use the site for staging rides. It will not be open 24 hours a day, but it will be open at most times of the day.

In addition, the project will improve the trail along the building line. The developers will replace the trail surface, landscape the area along it, and replace the solar trail lighting with lights on the side of the building. A portion of the trail will be enhanced for pedestrian use with different paving patterns and treatment to encourage trail use for commuters walking from the Metro station and to separate users.

The atrium will be at the elevation of the trail, so users will have to go down stairs or an elevator to access the plaza in the center of the site and from there access the surrounding streets. The stairs will have a bike trough as will stairs from the plaza to the sidewalk along the New York Avenue Bridge.

The first building to go up will likely be the western building, which will be residential. The developers will build a temporary 6- to 8-foot-wide paved connection from the trail to this building while they wait to build the two office buildings on the east that will include the atrium. The residential building will have indoor bike storage as well as outdoor visitor bike parking. One of the office buildings will have a fitness facility that will give commuters access to a shower.

DDOT worked with the developers on the PUD to make sure that the project would be permeable for cyclists and pedestrians, and from all appearances this has the potential to be a flagship example of how development should work with adjacent trails. I predict future Bicycle Summit tours of DC to include this as a must-see stop.

Cross-posted at the WashCycle.

There are many tasks that need to be performed to keep a trail open and in good repair. Tasks like sweeping, debris removal and snow removal improve the utility of the trail. Clearing vegetation that grows next to and over the trail can improve safety and extend the useful life of the trail. In some cases, trails have been effectively closed due to snow. On the Suitland Parkway Trail, maintenance has been ignored so long that the trail is literally crumbling away.

This isn't just a matter of convenience for trail users, it's about saving money by dealing with problems early. Just as changing your oil frequently will save you money in car repairs, maintaining a trail will save money that would otherwise be spent on repairs.

At the Recreational Trails Committee meeting this week, UFA announced that the new trail maintenance staff member would be issued a small utility work machine, like a Toolcat 5600. This machine can be equipped with one of over 40 attachments that would allow the operator to perform dozens of tasks: plow and remove snow, clear glass or sand that poses a safety hazard, and mow grass, for example. The new staffer would take ownership of both the vehicle and the trails.

Perhaps as importantly, the staffer wouldn't have to limit him or herself to off-street trails. In a snow event, he or she could clear bike lanes like the prominent ones on Pennsylvania Avenue, or the wider bridge sidepaths.

Initially, maintenance would be limited to DC trails like the Metropolitan Branch and Anacostia Riverwalk, but its possible DDOT could work out an agreement to also maintain National Park Service-owned trails like Rock Creek, the Capital Crescent and the DC portion of the Mount Vernon Trail (the island next to Arlington Cemetery at the west end of the Memorial Bridge is actually part of the District).

Until recently, DC didn't have much of it's own trail network, but the District now owns several miles of new or repaired trail. If UFA's plan is approved, users will start enjoying much better, and safer, cycling conditions.

Cross-posted at The WashCycle.

All values are adjusted for inflation and reported in 2010 dollars. Most of the road values are from 2007 but since then, driving is down more than 15% and road user fee receipts are down as well.

Here is how each cost contributes to the total, and how I arrived at each estimates:

Direct subsidy: In 2010, Amtrak received $563 million in operating subsidies and $1 billion in capital and debt service grants while carrying passengers a total of 6.52 billion passenger miles, for a direct subsidy of 24¢ ppm. Meanwhile, in 2007 roads received a $94.6 billion (49% of $193 billion) subsidy to carry automobile passengers (including drivers) 4.24 trillion miles for a direct subsidy of 2¢ per passenger mile.

This is where a lot of people like to end the story. And doing so makes Amtrak seem like a bad deal, but if we consider all the external costs of both, it becomes a very different story.

Air pollution: According to McCubbin and Delucchi (1996), the external cost of air pollution caused by driving was $0.112 per vehicle mile traveled (VMT) in 1990 dollars. According to the Federal Highway Administration, there are approximately 1.59 passengers per vehicle. So dividing the VMT by passengers per vehicle and adjusting for inflation gives a value of $0.118 ppm.

While a similar analysis is not available for Amtrak, we do have the energy intensity ppm for passenger cars (3501 Btu ppm) and Amtrak (2398 Btu ppm) which can serve as a reasonable proxy for air pollution emissions. If anything, this ratio is unfair to Amtrak, since the bulk of its energy use (carrying Northeast Corridor riders) is electricity which produces fewer emission per BTU than gasoline does due to the use of nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas and renewables. Using this ratio, the cost of air pollution caused by Amtrak is $0.081 ppm.

Global warming: In addition to air pollution, the burning of fossil fuels like gasoline or coal creates an assortment of greenhouse gases which have been shown to add to global warming. According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), the external cost per vehicle mile of GHG creation is $0.164 in $2007 which is equivalent to $0.109 ppm in $2010. Meanwhile, Carbon Fund calculates rail travel as creating 0.42 lbs CO2 per passenger mile.

The EPA calculates that the annual emissions from a typical passenger vehicle are 5.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Dividing that by the 12,000 miles the average car travels in a year (also from the EPA) results in 1.01 lbs per vmt or 0.64 lbs ppm. Using the lbs ppm to create a ratio (0.42/0.64) and multiplying it by the value for cars gives us the value for rail travel of $0.072.

Parking: While some parking costs are paid by users, others are external because, for example, of tax-exempt "free" employee parking or because of municipal parking minimums. Shoup (2005) sets the external cost of parking at $0.22 $0.05-$0.14 per vehicle mile in $2005. VTPI determines a value of $0.062 pvm. Accounting for inflation and passengers per vehicle this becomes $0.151$0.041 ppm. Amtrak, on the other hand, pays for its rail yards where it parks its trains, which means its parking is covered in its direct costs. Its subsidy is $0 ppm.

Resource consumption: The external costs of resource consumption refers primarily to the cost of producing, importing and distributing petroleum that are not passed directly to users. It includes the military costs associated with protecting oil supplies, macroeconomic costs of oil dependence, uncompensated ecological costs (like loss of a species), subsidies for drilling and costs associated with depleting a non-renewable resource. VTPI prices this at 76¢ per gallon or 4¢ ppm (in 2010) for roads.

Amtrak, meanwhile, used 62 billion gallons of diesel in 2009 to carry passengers 5.914 billion miles. Which puts its resource consumption external cost at $0.008 ppm in $2010. [(62B gallons*$0.80 per gallon)/5.914 billion miles]

Damage from crashes: While some crash costs are internal to the user, like insurance premiums or personal property damage, others are external because they're uncompensated or paid by an external user, such as when a pedestrian is injured in a hit and run crash. Looking at a series of studies and estimates of the external cost of automobile crashes, VTPI determined that the external cost per vehicle mile is $0.055 in $2007 which becomes $0.037 ppm.

Miller, Douglass and Pindus' 1994 paper on railroad injuries determines that per passenger mile, train injury costs comprise only one-fifth those of cars. There's reason to believe that less of the crash cost for rail is external than it is for autos because of Amtrak's greater ability to absorb such costs than an individual motorist. External Cost of Transport: Accident, Environmental and Congestion Costs in Western Europe puts the ratio for external costs of auto vs passenger rail at a much higher 41:1, so we can safely use the 5:1 ratio, making the external cost for rail $0.007 ppm

Congestion: Traffic congestion carries a very real transport cost that consists of incremental delay, vehicle operating costs (fuel and wear), pollution emissions and stress that result from interference among vehicles in the traffic stream. VTPI estimates the cost of congestion for roads at $0.035 pvm in $2007, which becomes $0.023 ppm in $2010. Unlike the highway system, most of our rail network is below capacity (Figure 13) which means Amtrak causes very little rail congestion.

While there has been little attempt to quantify the congestion Amtrak might cause, there is plenty about how it reduces congestion on roads and at airports. A USDOT study, in fact, determined that expanded rail service would have a net positive effect on congestion. And an Amtrak study put the benefit of the reduction of airport congestion along the Northeast Corridor alone at $104 million. Therefore I've conservatively set the Amtrak congestion charge at $0.00.

Lost tax revenue: Most of Amtrak's train routes use railroads owned by freight companies for which Amtrak pays rent and the owners pay property, sales and franchise tax. If roads and highways were similarly owned by private companies, they too would pay billions of dollars in taxes. TeleCommUnity set the value of the land used for roads in America at $7.1 trillion in $2007. Taxed at the average state property tax rate of 1.38% in $2010, roads would have contributed 2.8¢ ppm to states' coffers.

Before being made exempt in 1979, Amtrak paid state and local taxes which totaled $14 million in 1979. Adjusting for inflation and dividing by total passenger miles, lost tax revenue from Amtrak is 0.64¢ ppm.

Land use: ecological impacts: Building roads and railroads has an ecological impact that also carries a cost. These land use changes can, for example, cause a heat island effect, sever and fragment wildlife habitat and result in "roadkill." VTPI puts the cost of these ecological impacts for roads at $0.03 per vehicle mile in $2007 (or $0.0198 ppm in $2010).

Using the rail and road costs ppm defined in a 2005 Swiss ARE paper (from VTPI), we can determine a ratio between road and rail which is 0.7 centimes to 0.775 centimes per passenger kilometer (1.2 per vehicle kilometer/1.59 passengers per vehicle). This means that the ecological impact of passenger rail is 92.75% the value of the one for roads ppm. Multiplying this by $0.0198 gives a value for rail of $0.0184.

Noise: Noise from roads and rail can have real and measurable impacts on nearby land values. VTPI looked at several studies of the external cost of road noise and determined a value of $0.011 pvm ($0.0075 ppm in $2010). A study by INFRAS/IWW placed the ratio of ppm passenger rail noise costs to roadway noise costs at 3.9/5.2 (page 74). Multiplying this ratio times the cost for autos gives $0.0057.

Transportation diversity: Many communities are automobile dependent. This lack of diversity can often result in inefficiency and inequity, such as when people feel the need to drive for very short trips because they can't easily walk or bike on roads that don't accommodate that kind of travel. This eliminates options, leads to less physically active (and therefore less healthy) lifestyles, and can often trap people who can't, for whatever reason, drive. VTPI determines the value of the impact of roads on transportation diversity at $0.007 pvm ($0.0044 ppm). Amtrak doesn't create the same kinds of dependency, so it's cost is zero.

I omitted some costs because adequate values were not available for both. This includes the delays, discomfort and lack of access that vehicle traffic imposes on nonmotorized modes; waste disposal; water pollution and hydrological impacts; and other land impacts such as reduced property values, reduced community cohesion, and the costs associated with sprawl. Together these constitute another 4¢ ppm for roads, with most of that cost related to sprawl.

Amtrak is unlikely to have a larger ppm cost for these factors. Amtrak isn't considered an engine for sprawl. Railroad surfaces are capable of absorbing twice as much rainwater as paved roads—and there is far less land dedicated to Amtrak rail than to roads per passenger mile. So it is reasonable to believe that the addition of these omitted values would not change the relative values between the two subsidies very much or change them to be further in favor of Amtrak.

Based on these numbers, it appears that roads are subsidized at almost 12 1¢ per passenger mile more than Amtrak. To bring the two into balance, the gas tax would either need to be raised from the national average of 48.1¢ per gallon to about $3.30 $0.96 per gallon, or the Amtrak subsidy would need to be increased from $1.565 billion to $2.348$1.630 billion.

Another way to think about this is to combine the subsidized cost with the portion paid by user fees to get a total public cost. (Drivers' user fee revenue in 2008 was $94.512 billion and miles travelled was 4.9 trillion passenger miles for an inflation adjusted contribution of $0.020.)

Total public cost, unpaid + paid
Amtrak: $0.439 + $0.318 = $0.757
Roads: $0.557 $0.447 + $0.020 = $0.577 $0.467

Which means that Amtrak users are paying 44.5% of their public costs, while drivers pay only 3.6% 4.3% of theirs.

To be clear, this does not mean that motoring is cheaper. Drivers are also paying their own internal costs (purchase and maintenance of a car and insurance) which the IRS estimates to be 51¢ per mile total (or 48.5¢ per mile, less tax). That increases the total cost of driving to $1.062 $0.952 per mile. That's without considering the travel time costs. Comparing all the costs, Amtrak becomes much cheaper than motoring.

We should not ignore the environmental, political, human and other non-obvious costs of transportation when discussing how to fund it. By focusing only on the direct costs, as many choose to do, we run the risk of making the wrong decisions. While a more thorough scholarly analysis would surely come up with different values and totals than my amateur one, it's more than possible that Amtrak is the bargain paying most of its own way, and roads are the resource-consuming boondoggle that need to have their subsidy cut.

Finally, in 2011, the program got funding through a Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant to bring 200 bikes and 20 stations to Rockville. Some of the funded stations will go in unincorporated portions of the county around Shady Grove Metro, including the Life Sciences Center. Others will go in Rockville Town Center and areas around the Rockville Metro and MARC station inside the City of Rockville. Montgomery is still awaiting final approval and hope to install the stations in 2012.

The county is now seeking two additional grants: a Maryland DOT grant funded by Federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) money, which would require a 20% local match, and a TIGER III grant request.

In addition, State Senator Brian Frosh hopes to introduce a bill to have the state fund bonds to pay for bike sharing capital costs. The state could also consider tax credits for businesses supporting bike sharing.

Locally, the county could use funds from its parking districts to cover some of the costs. To developers willing to pay for a station, the county could offer density bonuses, reduce parking requirements, reduce payments to parking districts, or include them in Traffic Mitigation Agreements, which the county negotiates with developers around projects in areas like Bethesda. For current building owners, they can also offer tax credits and advertising or sponsorship opportunities.

Montgomery County is clearly dedicated to expanding bike sharing and, despite tight budgets, has identified many options to achieve that goal. Will any of them pan out in the immediate future? We can hope.

During the same time, CaBi riders racked up around 1.79 miles per trip, higher than the predicted 1.5 miles. Although August and September numbers have yet to be released, we can deduce that riders pedaled approximately 1,790,000 miles in the first 365 days of use.

In addition to higher than expected ridership, revenue is significantly stronger as well.

With 18,000 annual subscribers and an additional 66,534 short-term users, (approximately 2,000 of whom held monthly memberships), CaBi more than exceeded projected earnings from member dues. According to revenue numbers provided by DDOT they made about $1,500,000 in membership revenue for the first year, which is well above what they expected.

Overage fees add up, too. About 1% of trips by annual users and about 8% of trips by casual users run long (down from 15% of trips that were longer than 30 minutes under SmartBike), and these trips garner additional fees. As a result, according to DDOT, they made an additional $770,000 in overage fees.

This results in a total of $2,270,000 in revenue. In their TIGER II application the organization estimated $942,000 in revenue, assuming an $80 per year annual fee.

Not only did they vastly exceed revenue, they report that when they compare DC's monthly O and M cost to revenue (membership/usage fees) generated, they have a surplus of $300,000. A statement they've echoed elsewhere, according to Josh Moskowitz of DDOT and Scott Kubly (formerly of DDOT) "the operations and management for Capital Bikeshare is entirely self-sustaining—even profitable for the department."

It's not unreasonable to think that Arlington has had similar success.

If we consider the positive external benefits, CaBi looks even better. As DCist noted, the system has proven itself to be "a vital component of moving around the city during an emergency."

A study of the Barcelona system showed that their bike-sharing network saves lives, reduces CO₂ emissions and provides health benefits that are 77 times greater than the risks. And by getting more people on bikes, it's making biking into a more normative behavior, leading to more bicycle sales.

To try to quantify the benefits of CaBi within the DC metro area, I tweaked the worksheet CaBi submitted with the TIGER II application by replacing projections with the actual ridership and membership numbers that the system experienced this year. According to those calculations, CaBi created around an additional $1,500,000 in environmental, health, safety, access, travel time and travel cost benefits. This means that with both external and internal benefits considered, the system made approximately a $1,800,000 return.

And while the gains were higher than expected, the downside was not nearly as bad as some feared. Vandalism has not been the problem that some projected it would be. Nor has safety.

One specific criticism prior to the system's launch was that the stations weren't placed densely enough. Transportation blogger Yonah Freemark expressed this concern:

This could potentially cause significant problems for the users of the new U.S. capital system.

There are two main reasons for this: One, light station density makes short neighborhood commutes via public bicycle more difficult, reducing the chance to attract occasional riders; Two, insufficient density can cause logistical problems in situations where stations either run out of bicycles or, inversely, run out of dock spaces—not infrequent issues, at least considering my own experience using the Parisian system extensively.

Based on the massive number of day members, even without access to the National Mall, it's hard to back up the claim that CaBi has had trouble attracting occasional riders.

And the problem of empty docks or full docks is not unique to CaBi. In fact, both Montreal and Paris have serious problems with that issue, as well.

Catherine Maurency of Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique has analyzed bike-sharing data and notes that almost every city that's tried bike share has experienced some version of the problem. As Maurency points out, "if there's a subway breakdown you will have issues because there will be no more bikes and all these regular patterns will disappear. If it rains in the morning and it's sunny in the afternoon, then all the patterns change."

It's possible that a tighter placement of stations would have worked better. It's also possible that a looser placement would have been more successful. It's hard to say. But, at this point, it's even harder to say the numbers that CaBi is posting are indicative of a poorly functioning system. There is no definitive consensus on the appropriate dock density, and more likely than not, it differs from city to city anyway. However, this does not change the fact that DC's Capital Bikeshare is getting a lot right.

Another early concern, and one that led to a small controversy, was about the potential for a bike-sharing station to make a neighborhood more dangerous. Specifically, this was an issue with the Lincoln Park station, where neighbors were concerned about traffic, safety, trash, and so forth. But looking back, the whole issue seems rather silly. No one has asked that a station be moved further from his or her doorstep. Lincoln Park seems to have embraced the idea. And, indeed, most docks enjoy a warm reception.

It's exciting to see that Capital Bikeshare has exceeded expectations. The model has been more popular than expected, and it has cost less than projected. At the same time, it has been safer and more manageable than many anticipated. These are nothing if not solid indicators of a thriving, new system.

But perhaps the greatest testimony to its success is that not only is CaBi expanding within DC and Arlington, and to Rockville, Alexandria, and possibly Bethesda, but that other cities such as Chicago and New York are also following suit.

Crossposted at the Washcycle.

On the evening of May 14, 2009, about 40 Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers showed up at our house and attempted to execute the warrant they secured for the suspect. When no one answered the door, they proceeded to attempt to break down our back gate. After 45 minutes with a battering ram, drill and a crow bar they succeeded in damaging our security gate we installed before moving in, the door frame and parts of the house's exterior near the door, but they had not gotten in. They were in the process of getting a ladder so that they could break in through the second story window when my wife arrived.

After determining what was going on and showing the officers her ID, my wife was able to convince them to stop trying to break in. She coaxed them into showing her the search warrant and then allowed them inside. They briefly searched the house and admitted that they had made a mistake. They gave her some forms about how to be reimbursed for the damage, apologized and left.

We weren't angry. Police work is often time-sensitive and the impression they gave was that they were eager to catch some bad guys—which we support. They made an effort to avoid mistakes, but still mistakes will be made when one is in a hurry. No one was hurt and we expected to made whole.

Unfortunately, we had to pay to repair the damage first, and then ask to be reimbursed. To replace the door and the frame cost several thousand dollars, which we were able to pull out of our savings. But fixing damage to the exterior of the house would require removing much of the wall and the windows, and would have set us back over $10,000. We couldn't afford to float DC a loan to fix this and we were concerned that we might get stuck with the bill. Since the damage was only cosmetic we decided not to repair the exterior.

We had the repairs done over the course of the summer and fall, submitted the paperwork in November of 2009 and received a reply in January of 2010. We were advised that while the District intends to compensate residents for damages for which it is liable, it was not liable for damages in our case because the search warrant was valid.

However, DC MPD General Order 309 states, "In those instances where a forcible entry occurs as a result of misinformation, misinterpretation of information, or erroneous judgment, the Department will provide an explanation to the owner/occupant, and will repair the damage as soon as possible."

We started a dialogue with the city's Office of Risk Management (ORM) which makes the decision in these types of claims. They informed us that they have to follow the decision of the MPD, which said the claim should not be paid. When we contacted our District MPD, they said it was for the ORM to decide—though the police have their own ORM which the city's ORM accused of stonewalling.

Feeling like both sides were trying to blame the other, we asked if we could have a meeting with both agencies together. MPD declined, saying that, "The matter has been properly addressed by both agencies, DC and MPD's ORM... Although the MPD ORM does not decide whether to award or deny a claim, we do support and stand by the DC ORM's ruling that your claim is denied." I called MPD's ORM and was told, somewhat rudely, that my claim was denied, and "how hard is that to understand." After that my calls and emails to the MPD's ORM went unreturned.

Left with seemingly no other recourse, we filed suit against the District.

Property damage complaints related to police investigations are not new: the Police Complaints Board investigated them in 2005, finding that officers occasionally failed to inform people why their houses were being searched and left without arranging for repairs or informing the owners how to have repairs reimbursed. We learned from that report that MPD is supposed to immediately contact the on-call Facilities Management staff member to make necessary repairs when it appears MPD is responsible for repairs. This was not done for us.

We were not eager to go to court and were concerned that the District would win for reasons of sovereign immunity. So I made a last ditch effort and wrote letters to then-Mayor Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier [My wife joked that I might as well write Barack Obama too, as much as that it likely to work]. I cited the general order that calls for the city to repair damage in cases like this.

I was impressed when Chief Lanier wrote me the next morning to inform me that she would get involved. By the following day, a representative of the MPD's ORM told me that, "in light of the recent development," my claim would be paid. By recent development I assumed he meant getting chewed out by the Chief of Police.

In the end we were reimbursed in full, about 5 months after making our claim, but there are three key ways this frustrating and time-consuming debacle could have been avoided.

DC needs better electronic record-keeping. Before the warrant execution, we sent back dozens of pieces of official mail, including checks intended for the previous residents, to the District. And there were at least four places in DC records where the sale, ownership and new residents of the home were documented. If the MPD is going to rely on these records as the basis for a search warrant, they should work to link them so that when changes to the recorder of deeds records are made, for example, a flag goes up in other records.

Ideally the system could be searchable so that they could search for an address and get a time-ordered listing set of records pertaining to that address. Had that existed, they could see that the person they were looking for had lived there, but that all the newest records related to a new set of owners. The information they needed was in their possession, but their system couldn't easily access it.

When property is damaged in this way, MPD needs to follow policy and offer to make repairs immediately. I'm not sure we would have taken them up on it as we preferred to use our own contractor, but not everyone is able to front the money. I have visions of people living with a broken down door for months, and that's not acceptable.

MPD should be proactive and let residents know if they're going to reimburse them for damage, and for which damage, within a very short time after an incident (i.e. a week) instead of only after the repairs are made. We were left to guess as to which damage would be covered and which would not, and to worry that none of it would be covered. A slow, mysterious bureaucratic process is not a productive way to handle these kinds of situations.

Scribner's first criticism is that not enough money is going to cars, the mode he wants to put above all. He writes, "When TIGER II grants were announced, only a third of funding went to road projects. 'Livability,' you see, really means, 'go to hell, drivers!'"

If getting one third of transportation money is being told to go to hell, cyclists would love to be asked to go there.

While he is correct that roads only got 29% of the money, what he doesn't mention is that it got more than any other mode, which hardly sounds like the anti-car agenda he makes it out to be. Roads received 29 percent of TIGER II funding, while 26 percent went to transit, 20 percent to rail, 16 percent to ports, four percent to bicycle and pedestrian projects, and five percent for planning grants.

In TIGER I, the three largest projects were freight rail projects. Perhaps Scibner thinks moving freight more efficiently is "anti-mobility."

And some projects that aren't labelled as "road" projects will actually improve driving. For example, the CREATE project in Chicago, which received money in TIGER I, lists "reducing motorist delay due to rail conflict at grade crossings" as one of their top goals.

Thus, it's laughable to state that roads and drivers are being ignored, but for Scribner getting anything less than 100% of the money is to be ignored. State and local DOTs see it differently. In the first round of TIGER funding, only 57% of the money applied for was for roads.

Scribner makes much of the fact that some modes of transportation are used by a small group. Only 5.5% of commuters in Salt Lake City, which won money for a streetcar, use transit. Only 0.3% of commuters bike commute in Fayettville, AR, which won a grant for a 36-mile bike trail.

But this only proves that we've done a lousy job of creating choices. We built entire regions of our country around driving, built roads designed to maximize driver speed, didn't bother with sidewalks or creating roads that invited cyclists, created a fractured and slow transit system and look, now no one takes transit or walks or bikes. That no one uses a non-existent option is not evidence that the option shouldn't exist.

Scribner's other criticism is that the process uses livability as a standard for making grants. In his usual self-contradictory style, he frequently refers to "livability" as vague and meaningless, while simultaneously linking to a USDOT definition of the term.

"We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live."

(That same link is tied to the words "all sorts of silly investments" even though the author at the link only worries that it will cause silly investments. There is no evidence of such investments. One person's worries hardly constitutes fact.)

USDOT even has a detailed website that more clearly defines what livability means.

And there's a technical reason why livability matters for these grants. In TIGER II, HUD kicked in $40 million to encourage transit-oriented development (one part of livability according to DOT's definition).

Scribner refers to the Razorback Greenway and Salt Lake City Streetcar as "duds" which, considering that neither has finished construction yet, is a bit premature. To Scribner, even if both projects meet or exceed the goals outlined in their TIGER grant applications they'll be duds because they don't meet his goals. It's like calling the Apollo program a dud because it didn't cure cancer.

But $15 million for a 36 mile transportation project compares pretty favorably to something like the 18-mile, $2.566 billion Intercounty Connector. The Greenway will only need 321 users per day to match the user/dollar ratio of the ICC.

Luckily, USDOT is moving away from the windshield perspective of Marc Scribner, and TIGER III has the potential to be a real success, as long as you don't define success only in terms of moving cars.

Tomorrow, the National Capital Transportation Planning Board is expected to formally approve the grants. The $1.288 million funding and $688,000 local match for the bikeshare project will cover capital purchases and operating costs for two years. $200,000 of the match is from the City of Rockville.

The Montgomery County DOT applied for the funds, and winners were chosen by a selection committee and staff. Other winning projects include funding the shuttle bus to National Harbor that is filling the gap left by rerouting and shortening hours on the NH-1 bus, gas cards for home care aides serving people far from transit, and a rideshare coordinator for the Dulles corridor.

CaBi is a sensible use of funds to improve mobility for low-income commuters. With its minimal membership fees and an extra subsidy for those who most need it, CaBi can be a great commuting option for those on a budget. One $75 purchase can provide a year's worth of transportation.

The city of Rockville expressed an interest in joining even before CaBi launched. Being so far from the rest of the system, it is unlikely that many people will ride CaBi from Rockville to downtown DC. The investment might have gotten greater network effects if it centered around a place like Silver Spring and DC added more stations on its side of the border.

Though the pilot is going to be small, it can still serve a couple of roles easily. Members can ride from near their homes to the train stations, then take a train to DC and grab another bike for the ride to work—all with one key. It will expand on the bike-sharing assisted commute by making it possible at both ends, just as the Crystal City pod does. And it will increase mobility in Rockville and Shady Grove, making it easier to cover short distances, just as it does now in Arlington and DC.

Also, if a completely separate pod is successful in Rockville, then it could pave the way for other pods in discrete areas. For example, College Park has been suggesting they want to join for some time. If it works in Rockville, it means College Park doesn't have to wait for the tide of bikes to ripple outward.

Cross-posted at The WashCycle.

Recent data confirms that biking east of the river is a challenge. Arlington released Capital Bikeshare data showing that there were few users in that part of DC.

We followed the news with a discussion of the issues that potential east of the river bike users face. WABA has also specifically targeted outreach efforts to improve cycling in that part of the city.

With this in mind, and inspired by David Alpert's WMATA fantasy map, I created this fantasy bike trail map based on the area east of the river. The idea is to create three north-south routes and connect them with several east-west rungs.

Here is a description of each of the trails.

Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART). The Anacostia Riverwalk Trail network is a set of trails proposed to follow along both sides of the Anacostia River for its entire length in DC. It will stretch from the Douglass Bridge to the DC/Prince George's County boundary. On the south end it will connect to the extant section of the South Capitol Street Trail. On the north end it will connect to Prince George's County's Anacostia Trail. Two sections of this trail are already open, one from the Douglass Bridge to 11th Street SE and and another between the CSX rail line and Benning Road NE. A section that bridges over the rail line and connects to 11th Street is currently being built.

Future construction includes the section north of Benning Road, which includes the trail along the the river and another to Eastland Gardens, and a new Anacostia River crossing south of the Arboretum. This is currently undergoing Environmental Assessment review. Once completed this trail will be the first north-south route east of the river and will connect Ward 7, Ward 8, and Maryland as well as the six river crossings in DC. A cyclist in Anacostia could ride as far as Wheaton or Beltsville on the new DC/Maryland trail network. The trail could be further enhanced with a river crossing on either the current or a future New York Avenue Bridge.

South Capitol Street Trail. The South Capitol Street Trail is a trail proposed to run along the east edge of the secure facilities that line the Potomac River in far Southwest before jogging east to connect to the Oxon Hill Farm Trail. It will serve as a connection between the Douglass and Wilson bridges as well as a continuation of the Anacostia Trails. By finishing the connection between the Mt. Vernon Trail and the Anacostia Trail System it will connect Northern Virginia's system with Prince George's County's. The concept plan for this project was completed in 2010.

Cheverly Connector. This trail would run on the east and south sides of the railroad tracks that connect Deanwood with Cheverly. It isn't in any plans, but is one I think should be included in future bike plans. In DC, it would start at the Deanwood underpass, cross the Deanwood Metro station and parking lot to connect to the alley behind the northernmost section of Minnesota Avenue NE and then cross over Eastern Avenue NE on a trail bridge. In Maryland it would follow the strip of land between the CSX rail line and Addison Road to go around the Mid-Atlantic Finishing site, then pass between the Metro tracks and what will be Addison Row. From there it would cross Lower Beaverdam Creek and connect to the parking lot at the Cheverly Metro.

This would create a straight connection between eastern Cheverly and DC. It could also serve as a connection between the ART, via a Nash Run Trail, and a planned trail along Lower Beaverdam Creek. Following the creek all the way to the Anacostia would be almost impossible as it would necessitate negotiating the trail under the Metro tracks, two sets of rail lines and MD-201 while passing through an in-use industrial site. There could be issues with the Addison Row development, as it appears to be very close to the Metro tracks.

Nash Run Trail. Nash Run is an Anacostia tributary that starts in Farimount Heights in Prince George's County, passes under the Deanwood Recreation Center and Metro station and into Kenilworth Gardens. There is no trail along this stream in any plans, but again it is one I think should be included in future bike plans. A trail could be built to follow this stream. It would connect to the ART at Anacostia Avenue before turning east along the above ground portion of the stream south of Douglas St NE. It could go over 295 on the extant pedestrian overpass and then through the tunnel under the rail lines. On the east side of the tracks, it would become an on-road route along Nash Road NE, Leroy Gorham Drive NE, and Nash Place NE, where it would connect to Robert Gray Elementary School and Fairmont Heights High School.

The WB&A Rail Trail. Prince George's County currently plans to build an "on-road" trail along MD-704 from the southern terminus of the WB&A trail in Bowie to the District line. As MD-704 is built on the old WB&A right of way, this would be a continuation of that trail. Once in the District, the trail could be routed on-road west along Dix Street NE to the Marvin Gaye Park Trail and south on Eastern Avenue NE to the Chesapeake Beach Rail Trail and the Watts Branch extended trail.

Chesapeake Beach Rail Trail. Maryland has plans to build a trail from the DC line to Chesapeake Beach, MD, following the old Chesapeake Railroad route (though not always on the old railbed since the line wasn't railbanked). A very short section of the trail exists from Crown Street in Seat Pleasant to the shopping center on East Capitol Street. If extended west to the DC line along an extant social trail, it could be easily connected to the east end of the existing Marvin Gaye Park Trail, which runs parallel to the old railroad in DC.

Marvin Gaye Park/Watts Branch Trail. The Marvin Gaye Park Trail is an existing, and recently rebuilt, trail that runs along the banks of Watts Branch. It could be extended to both the west and the east along the stream. It could go west through the Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue NE underpass and along Deane Avenue NE to the ART and from there to the new bridge across the Anacostia.

It could also expand east into Prince George's County, where the name of the trail may change, along the two Watts Branch tributaries that form the stream just inside the District. A trail along the western tributary would pass the planned Walmart and the Capitol Heights Metro before going through the Capitol Heights neighborhood. The trail along the eastern tributary would pass through park land. Both trails could end at different locations along Rollins Avenue where they could connect via bike lanes.

Boundary Bikeway. Moving cyclists along the east side of the District is trickier than the west side. There is no linear park and the only road that goes through, Southern Avenue, is considered a poor road for cyclists. While one option may be to make Southern more friendly with bike lanes or cycle tracks, an easier option might be to build a bikeway on the first roads across the boundary in Prince George's County. Using the streets Akin, Able, Boones Hill, and Arcadia and connecting them with short trails as needed, a bikeway could be built connecting the trail along Watts Branch to the one at Oxon Run. A bike/pedestrian bridge over Pennsylvania Avenue would finish the connection.

Pennsylvania Avenue Trail. As part of the Pennsylvania Avenue Great Streets concept plan there was a proposal to run a multi-use trail along the side of Penn from the old railroad tracks to Southern Avenue. This trail would have connected the Shepherd Rail Trail on the east side, with the Fort Circle Trail in the middle and the Boundary Bikeway and Oxon Run Trail on the west.

DDOT has been actively rebuilding Pennsylvania Avenue SE for over a year, and as sections have been completed, it's clear that there is no associated muti-use trail or cycletrack. There is a wider sidewalk, but it can't really be called a bike facility. Since there is unlikely to be a second bite at that apple for a while, the next best option is to connect the short distance from Fort Circle Trail and the trails in Maryland with a trail either along Pennsylvania Avenue or through the apartments on the south side above the buried Fort Davis tributary.

Shepherd Rail Trail. The dormant Shepherd Industrial spur rail line could be converted into a rail trail running from the South Capitol Street Trail all the way to Fort Dupont. Though the trail would run parallel to the ART, it would be on the east side of the Anacostia Freeway, where people live, thus serving a different constituency.

It would tie into the ART at both the north and south ends of the rail spur and also intersect the St. Elizabeths Access Trail, Suitland Parkway Trail, Pope Branch Trail, and Fort Dupont Trail. This trail was originally to be built in conjunction with the streetcar but was abandoned when the right-of-way was deemed unsuitable for the streetcar. Nonetheless, it is in the District's Bicycle Master Plan. Building it would require railbanking the existing right-of-way, which CSX reportedly wants to keep.

Fort Circle Trail. The Fort Circle Trail is a mostly-unpaved trail running from the Anacostia Community Museum at Bruce Place and Raynolds Street SE in Fort Stanton Park to the Marvin Gaye Park Trail at Hunt Place NE. The current trail is the only single-track trail in DC and is popular with mountain bikers. There have been some proposals to extend and improve the trail. DC should create a paved trail in line with those plans to complement the single-track trail. In addition, I propose some other enhancements not currently in any plans.

In the center, Fort Davis Drive could be widened with bike lanes, a cycletrack or a sidepath. In other areas a paved trail through the parks could be created or improved. On the south end it could be extended from its current endpoint to the Suitland Parkway Trail near 20th Street SE and then to the Congress Heights Metro. A spur from the Anacostia History Museum could connect to W Street SE . A second spur could connect through Fort Stanton east to Pomeroy Road SE and the Suitland Parkway Trail. It could then cross Suitland Parkway and travel uphill along the stream flowing from St. Elizabeths' east campus, where it too could connect to the Congress Heights Metro Station, Alabama Avenue, and, via 13th Street, to the Oxon Run Trail. The Fort Circle trail would become the critical "center leg trail" of the east of the river trail system.

Oxon Run Trail. Oxon Run is another stream that starts in District Heights, MD, but instead of flowing into the Anacostia, it turns south to the Potomac. It forms the route for Pennsylvania Avenue in Maryland, then crosses the DC/Maryland border and runs along it. It crosses into DC near the Southern Avenue Metro station, back into Maryland at Oxon Hill Farm and back again into DC just before emptying into the Potomac River. A pair of unconnected trails currently follows the lower portions of the stream in DC and Oxon Hill Farm.

DC has plans for improving its section from entry to exit and better connecting it to the Oxon Hill Farm Trail. PG County plans to extend it from the DC line to the Naylor Road Metro station where it would connect to the Suitland Parkway Trail.

In addition to these plans, NPS should upgrade its old, substandard trail in Oxon Farm, and PG County should consider extending the trail farther. Room exists to extend the trail north along the stream past Lincoln Memorial and Cedar Hill Cemeteries, then across Pennsylvania Ave at Arcadia Ave (where the Boundary Bikeway ends), and then along the North side of Pennsylvania Avenue to Penn Crossing.

Suitland Parkway Trail. The Suitland Parkway Trail is a bike trail along the north side of the Suitland Parkway from Pomeroy Road in DC to a dead end just west of Southern Avenue. On the west end it connects to the Anacostia Metro and the ART via an on-road route. PG County has plans to extend the trail into Maryland as far as the Branch Avenue Metro Station where it will connect to the extension of the Henson Creek Trail.

Prince George's County shouldn't stop at Branch Avenue. It should continue the trail east along the Parkway and upper Henson Creek all the way to Andrews Air Force Base. Once the Maryland section is built, DDOT will likely upgrade the almost-unusable trail in DC. Improvements to the on-street route should be included in the South Capitol Street plan.

St Elizabeths Access Trail. The St. Elizabeths Access trail is a trail to be built along the east side of the access road to the DHS facility at St Elizabeths. It would start at the intersection of the South Capitol Street Trail and Shepherd Rail Trail at Firth Sterling Avenue SE just east of the Anacostia Freeway and would end at the intersection of South Capitol Street and MLK Avenue. There it would connect to the Oxon Run Trail and, again, to the South Capitol Street Trail.

It will create a parallel option to the South Capitol Street Trail that is on the residential side of the Anacostia Freeway. This is to currently being built with part to open in 2013 and more to open in 2014.

Pope Branch Trail. Pope Branch is a short stream running parallel to and south of Massachusetts Avenue SE. It runs through park land and is only crossed by four roads along the way. A trail along this stream could connect the Fort Circle Trail to the Shepherd Rail Trail. It could also connect to many of the streets along the park to tie in the neighborhoods between Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Avenues.

Fort Dupont Trail. In Fort Dupont Park there is a partial loop trail. The trails that exist there are mostly unusable and need to be upgraded - especially along the north side. On the south and east, the trail could be replaced with a sidepath along Fort Davis and Fort Dupont Drives.

The trail could also be extended east, past the Fort Circle trail, to Alabama Avenue SE and, with a bicycle boulevard on a couple of blocks on Beck Street SE and Vine Street, to the Boundary Bikeway. To the west the trail could be extended along the stream that flows through the park, to the Shepherd Rail Trail and through the south side of the railroad's DC-295 underpass to the ART. Currently, there is nowhere for a cyclist to cross DC-295 between Pennsylvania Avenue SE and Benning Road NE, and Pennsylvania Avenue is not for the timid. This would create a new crossing and a direct connection the entire way to Maryland.

Piney Run Trail. Piney Run is a stream that starts just south of Hebrew Cemetery on the DC/Maryland border and then flows on the south side of Benning Road before going underground just south of Fort Mahon. Though most of the stream is buried, it's route can still be used to build a trail connecting the Boundary Bikeway at Abel Road in Maryland to the Fort Circle Trail in Fort Chaplin Park, and connect the Fletcher Johnson and Benning Park Recreation Centers along the way.

Hillcrest Connector trail. A connector trail through Hillcrest could use an assortment of parks and green space to connect the Hillcrest neighborhood to the Fort Circle Trail and the Naylor Road Metro Station where the Suitland Parkway and Oxon Run trails meet. The trail could run on the north side of Naylor Road SE from the Metro station and along the edge of 30th Street SE to a point just south of Fort Baker Drive. The trail would then use an unbuilt road, for which the ROW still exists, to cross Naylor Road and connect to the Fort Circle Trail. In addition, this trail could easily connect to any future Skyland development.

Benning Road Cycletrack. Currently, Benning Road is the only place between Pennsylvania Avenue and Bladensburg where pedestrians and cyclists can go from west of the river to east of 295. This uncrossable span of river stretches nearly 4 miles. Traffic moves fast on Benning Road, so much so that it has a speed camera on it. Most cyclists use the sidewalks to travel from the river to Minnesota Avenue NE. On several occasions cyclists have been hit on the sidewalks along Benning.

To make this connection more desirable a cycletrack should be added along the south side of Benning Road between the Anacostia Bridge and the railroad bridge and from the railroad bridge to the Fort Circle Trail.

Henson Creek Trail. This is the only trail listed that doesn't connect directly to DC. This trail currently runs from Oxon Hill Road to Temple Hill Road in Prince George's County and is already planned for extension to the Branch Avenue Metro Station. A further extension along a tributary of Henson Creek through District Heights could connect the trailheads of the Oxon Run Trail and two Watts Branch Trails.

This network could create one of the most bikeable and walkable communities in the country, tie neighborhoods together, and bring all the benefits of active transportation to the eastern part of the city. It would involve a lot of paving, but if designed with stormwater management projects and daylighting of streams, the impact on water quality could be offset or even improved.

Cross-posted at The Washcycle.