Posts by David Cranor
|David Cranor is an operations engineer. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate who serves on the Bicycle Advisory Council for DC.|
A connector trail between the Little Falls Trail and the Capitol Crescent Trail now has a final design. It makes for a longer connection than one of the other options, but it's also safer, cheaper, and will have less environmental impact.
Right now, the only route between the two trails is through the parking lot of the Bethesda Outdoor Pool. The hard surface trail will run along the south side of Hillandale Road, then along the east side of Little Falls Parkway.
The connector trail will have at-grade crossings at Hillandale Road and one of the pool parking lot's entrances. It will be 860 feet long, and the cost is estimated at $408,000.
The Montgomery County Planning Board recommended this trail over another option, a boardwalk that would have been a more direct connection and would have avoided entrances to the pool, but that also would have cost $200,000 more.
The design process initially included three total options, all coming as results of a trail alignment study. Those options were two shorter routes on the north side of the pool and a longer one, similar to what the planning board chose but with the crossing of Hillendale at the north side of the pool.
Based on community input, especially from the Little Falls Watershed Alliance (LFWA) which proposed the recommended option, these options were refined to two: what's now being proceeded with, and the boardwalk.
The boardwalk would have been 525 feet long, on piers with a concrete deck and a section of concrete paving and stairs. It would have made for a shorter and more scenic trip between the two trails, with fewer places where bikes and cars would have had to share the road. But it also would have cost $617,000 and required construction in the Willett Branch stream buffer and removal of several trees including a 22-foot pine tree.
The planning board recommended the hard surface trail because it will cost less, doesn't run through the woods, and will have less of an environment impact (it will also require construction in the Willett Branch stream buffer, but would only impact, not remove, seven trees, all under 12 feet tall).
Leading up to the decision, the LFWA, Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail (CCCT) and Kenwood Forest II Condo Association all supported the hard surface trail over the boardwalk and no-build options. The CCCT opposed the boardwalk, primarily out of a concern for safety. The CCCT believes that the safest place to connect to the Capital Crescent Trail is at the intersection with Little Falls Parkway, where traffic is already slowed down, not farther north where cyclists are up to speed.
Meanwhile, three local residents, including at least one daily bike commuter, supported the boardwalk and another supported the boardwalk and Option C from the original trail alignments. In addition, six individuals, the Chevy Chase West Neighborhood Association, and about 100 signatories to a petition were against building anything altogether, finding the project to be too costly and environmentally damaging.
The connector trail currently has no funding, and there are no immediate plans to begin construction.
For the past year, the National Park Service has been working on a way to make it easier to pass through Banneker Park, from L'Enfant Plaza to the forthcoming Wharf development and Anacostia Riverwalk Trail. It just released its plan for making that happen.
Right now at Banneker Circle, there are no curb ramps to get from the roadway to the I-395 pedestrian bridge, the path to the intersection of Maine Avenue and 9th Street NE, or the informal path to Maine Avenue. The plan to change that, which NPS has identified as its "preferred alternative," calls for two new paths and a new staircase. It's a continued improvement over the concepts presented last summer.
The staircase replaces the existing informal pathway with a direct connection between the park's west side and the crossing that leads people across Maine Avenue and to the Wharf development at the Southwest Waterfront. The staircase is set to include transition areas for safe and comfortable access, integrated lighting, and a bicycle trough.
An 8-foot wide, ADA-compliant sidewalk will go in place of the existing path, running from the corner of Maine Avenue and 9th Street SW to the park's east side. About halfway up the hill, it crosses the eastbound lane of L'Enfant Plaza, then follows alongside that lane before crossing the westbound lane at the top of the hill.
There will also be a new crosswalk on the north side of the park, and all of the new sidewalks will get curb ramps, which aren't there now.
In addition, a second 8-foot wide ADA-compliant path will connect the pedestrian crossing to the Wharf to the other path's L'Enfant Plaza crosswalk.
The new design also includes new trees, paying homage to the park's original design by Dan Kiley. There will be restored landscaping, potential stormwater retention areas, and the 6-foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Maine Ave will get wider.
The addition of curb ramps, stairs, crosswalks and ADA-compliant paths should make the whole area easier to traverse for people on bikes, on foot, or in wheelchairs. It should also create an improved connection between the I-395 bicycle/pedestrian bridge, the National Mall and the Anacostia Riverwalk.
NPS has considered another design, calling it the "non-preferred alternative." That one would create a parallel staircase and ramp around the east side of the park that ran to the pedestrian crossing to the Wharf.
NPS has taken the project, started by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), through the Environmental Assessment process and will be returning to the NCPC for a revised concept review on April 7.
The percentage of people taking transit, biking, and working from home is on the up over the past 14 years. Driving, both by by individuals and in carpools, is down.
A look at the percentage of the population using various modes of transportation for their commutes. Graph from the Transportation Planning Board.
This is according to data from the Transportation Planning Board about commuting trends in our region.
The total percentage of people commuting by car is down, from 81.1% in 2000 to 74.7% in 2014. Meanwhile, transit use has risen by 40%, telecommuting is up 38%, and bike commuting is up 200%. The percentage of people who walk is also up, but only from 3% to 3.1%.
You can check out the rest of the TPB's report on regional travel trends here.
Around the District, four new sections of bike lanes and protected bikeways will replace existing driving lanes. These are part of four miles of planned new segments that will close gaps in the city's bike infrastructure.
They'll focus on four major areas: the Metropolitan Branch Trail, the Klingle Trail, downtown, and Piney Branch Road, near Catholic University.
The projects are part of an amendment the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is submitting to the Transportation Planning Board's long-term plan. DDOT is proposing to complete all of them this year, an undertaking that would cost $1.35 million.
Here's a big-picture look at all of them:
Map from MWCOG.
Metropolitan Branch Trail
Three of the eight projects are related to the Metropolitan Branch Trail. One would cut Blair Rd NW from three lanes to two lanes from Peabody Street to Aspen Street (a total of 0.73 miles) to allow for that section of the trail to be added in.
Two other projects would, functionally if not explicitly, extend the trail south from Union Station to the National Mall. One would remove a lane from Louisiana Avenue from Columbus Circle to Constitution Avenue in order to add in a 0.42 mile long protected bikeway. The other would remove two lanes from the stretch of Constitution Avenue that runs from 1st to Pennsylvania Ave NW to add in 0.23 miles of protected bikeway.
Klingle Trail Connection
Another project would remove half the lanes on Klingle Road between the under-construction Klingle Trail at Porter Street and Adams Mill Road. This would allow for 0.31 miles of separated bike lanes on both sides of the street, which will help to connect Mount Pleasant and the new trail.
East side downtown protected bikeway
Closing bike lane gaps
The remaining three projects would close gaps in the current bike network. The first, in Edgewood, would remove a driving lane on 4th St NE between the existing bike lanes that end at Lincoln Road and the existing bike lanes at Harewood Road and add 0.27 miles of bike lane in their place.
The second would remove one of two driving lanes on the one-way section of Harewood Rd NW on the south side of the Soldier's Home Cemetery and replace it with a separated bike lane (I assume bi-directional). It would be 0.2 miles long between Rock Creek Church Road and North Capitol.
The last and smallest project, at 0.11 miles, would close a small gap in the bike lanes on Piney Branch Road NW between Georgia Ave and Underwood Street, again by removing a driving lane.
The Transportation Planning Board has opened a 30-day comment period on these changes.
There are other new bike projects in the works around the region. The I-66 Multimodal Improvement Project includes bike and walking improvements, and a project to extend VRE to Haymarket will include three new stations with "bicycle access." The Crystal City Transit Way (BRT) promises bicycle and pedestrian facilities improvements, and the I-66 Outside the Beltway project notes that Bicycle and Pedestrian accommodations in the corridor are included as part of the Preferred Alternative.
Cross-posted at The WashCycle.
From our nation's founding until 1977, vice presidents had to find their own place to live. I created a map of where they made their homes, from boarding houses in the shadow of the Capitol building to large estates in nearby Maryland and Virginia.
Stars are buildings that still exist; colors signify the half-century they were occupied. Map by the author.
I found 58 houses and hotels were vice presidents lived. Twenty-five of these homes still remain today, and 17 of them are still used as private homes or hotels.
The map includes at least one residence for every vice president, even Theodore Roosevelt, who lived in DC for five days, and John Tyler, who lived here for just one day. The one exception is William R. King, who was inaugurated in Cuba and died six weeks later without ever coming to Washington. This is not a complete list, as some directories don't include the information or aren't easily available, and some vice presidents likely moved mid-session (Aaron Burr did it once) and their new homes might not have been recorded.
The first vice presidents lived in boarding houses
Starting with President John Adams in 1800, presidents lived in the White House, which was then the largest house in the United States. In contrast, Adams' vice president, Thomas Jefferson, rented a bedroom and parlor in a Capitol Hill boarding house where he lived with 30 other members of Congress, Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, and a handful of their wives. Similar to Jefferson, most of the early vice presidents lived in boarding houses, many near the Capitol.
Later, vice presidents lived in hotels, starting with George M. Dallas in 1845. Others followed suit over the next century until John Nance Garner, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's vice president who lived in the Hotel Washington until 1941, became the last. Others rented private homes or lived with wealthy residents. In 1889,
William Henry Benjamin Harrison's vice president Levi P. Morton was the first to own his own home (or possibly Schuyler Colfax 20 years earlier), but by the 1950s personal ownership became the norm.
It wasn't only the kinds of homes that changed, but also the locations. Until 1839, most vice presidents lived on Capitol Hill. From the 1840s to the 1920s, vice presidents lived almost exclusively within what we now call the Central Business District, except for John C. Calhoun's time at Dumbarton in Georgetown. In 1919, Thomas Marshall moved outside of the L'Enfant City to stay in the old Wardman Park Hotel, and 20 years later, Garner would be the last VP to live downtown. After World War II, vice presidents moved toward the upper northwest part of DC and into Maryland and Virginia.
Of the 25 remaining vice presidential residences, the oldest one is 1909 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. In the late 18th century, it was home to Vice President Elbridge Gerry, who served under James Madison and gave is the eponym of the term "gerrymandering." The building was a boarding house at the time, and Gerry lived with the secretaries of the Navy, War, and Treasury. Today, that building is part of the Mexican Embassy.
The Naval Observatory is now the vice president's permanent home
In 1951, Congress directed the Secret Service to protect the vice president and their family, which would eventually lead to the creation of a permanent vice presidential residence. Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1961, the Secret Service gave vice presidents full-time, in-home protection, which required expensive improvements to their private homes.
In 1966, Congress authorized the creation of an official vice presidential residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory, but postponed construction until after the Vietnam War. For the following eight years, the Secret Service spent $123,000 to safeguard the private homes of Hubert H. Humphrey, $250,000 for Spiro Agnew, and $80,000 for Gerald Ford.
Due to public outrage over the cost of improving Spiro Agnew's house, Congress took an existing house next to the lot where the vice presidential house would go and made it the "Official Temporary Vice-President's Residence." The 33-room mansion, then known as Admiral's House, had served as the home of the Chief of Naval Operations since 1923. Due to political opposition to the cost of building a permanent home, and concerns from astronomers at the Naval Observatory that a new house would interfere with their work, a new house was never built.
Admiral's House, now called One Observatory Circle, became the official vice president's residence in 1975. However, then-Vice President Nelson Rockefeller only used it for entertaining, preferring to stay at his sprawling estate in the Foxhall neighborhood. In 1977, Walter Mondale and his family became the first to move in to the official residence. Since then, six vice presidents have lived there (though ongoing maintenance to the house has delayed the Second Family from moving in on at least three occasions), tying it with the Willard Hotel for housing the most vice presidents.
Most people would say they favor harsher punishments for drunk driving. But when it comes to keeping impaired drivers off the road, the most important thing is having laws that work.
During testimony at a recent DC Council Transportation Committee hearing in favor of laws to eliminate road deaths, Mothers Against Drunk Driving State Legislative Affairs Manager Frank Harris supported increased use of ignition interlock devices, which are mechanisms that test the driver's blood alcohol level and keep a car from starting if the driver is under the influence.
The District barely uses its current ignition interlock program. Right now, only nine people in the District have one, which is a much lower rate than in Maryland or Virginia. Harris said relying on the devices more would be more effective than current penalties.
Revoking licenses, Harris said, is a "hope for the best" policy: there's a risk DWI offenders will drive anyway. With interlock devices, there's a higher chance offenders drive soberly.
The bill currently being proposed for DC would require two-time offenders and offenders with particularly high blood alcohol concentrations to use a device. According to Harris, if DC were to require all DWI offenders to install an interlock device for at least six months, a federal incentive grant from NHTSA of around $200,000 could cover the cost of the program.
25 other states, including Virginia, have such a requirement for first-time offenders.
Interlock devices cost a little less than $3 a day. While most people who are ordered to use interlock devices have to pay for them, most states require manufacturers to provide devices to people who can't afford them, a model DC could emulate.
The DC government has committed to "Vision Zero," a goal of eliminating all road deaths. A detailed plan from the Bowser Administration will come out Wednesday, but in the meantime, legislators have been putting forth their own proposals for laws around safety.
Four bills in the DC Council about road safety proposals were the subject of a hearing on December 8. Here's a rundown of what they will do.
This bill, introduced by Chairman Phil Mendelson, would increase fines for people who repeatedly engage in distracted driving. Anyone with three violations within eighteen months would get his or her driver's license suspensded and points on the license.
Today, first-time violators who purchase a hands-free device do not face any fines; the bill would end that waiver.
Speakers at the hearing were broadly supportive. Many asked whether or not it went far enough. Both the District's Bicycle Advisory Council and Washington Area Bicyclist Association expressed interest in expanding a ban on driving while using a hands-free phone device (it's illegal for all road users to use a handheld phone). That ban now applies to school bus drivers and novice drivers; witnesses suggested adding drivers in school zones and construction zones, or preferably all drivers at all times.
Others asked that the bill include more provisions for education about distracted driving. (Disclosure: I am acting chair of the Bicycle Advisory Council and testified on its behalf for this bill.)
Earlier this year, Mary Cheh, chair of the council's transportation committee, convened a working group of advocates to discuss potential changes to the law around road safety. The group reached consensus on a number of changes, which are in this bill. Some of the key provisions would:
- Require the government to regularly publish data on crashes, sidewalk closures, citizen petitions for for traffic calming measures, dangerous intersections, and moving violations.
- Instruct the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to create Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Areas (at least one per ward) with no right turns on red, lower speed limis, and more human and camera enforcement.
- Let cyclists slow down and yield rather than stop fully at stop signs.
- Write a Complete Streets policy into law. (DDOT has one today, but just as a directive of the DDOT Director which can be revoked at any time.)
- Create a curriculum on safe cycling and walking for schools; require taxi and other for-hire drivers to go through training on bicycle and pedestrian safety.
- Apply the laws for motor vehicle insurance to bicycle insurance, and allow bicycle insurance providers to require policyholders to register their bikes.
- Impose larger fines on repeat violators (up to five times the fine for a fourth offense) for violations including speeding, blocking a crosswalk, and illegal stopping or standing including in a bike lane (sorry UPS!)
- Allow aggressive driving citations for drivers who commit three or more or a set of violations (like speeding or improper lane changes). This which carries a penalty of $200 and 2 points and mandatory driver education.
- Forbid using a phone in the car when not moving.
- Require side under-run guards, reflective blind spot warning stickers, and either blind spot mirrors or cameras on all heavy-duty vehicles registered in DC. This is currently the law for District-owned vehicles.
- Create a Major Crash Review Task Force to review major crashes and recommend changes to reduce the number of them.
Much of the discussion for this bill focused on the fact that it does not lower the speed on residential streets, a proposal which the working group discussed but didn't reach consensus on. WABA had several proposals for ways the bill could go farther to create safer streets.
Some witnesses opposed pieces of the law. Several were uneasy about letting cyclists yield at stop signs.
The Metropolitan Police Department's representative argued that the law was primarily about convenience and might, in an urban environment, lead to more crashes. In response, Councilmember Elissa Silverman asked if there was any evidence that it might lead to more crashes, and MPD conceded that there was none. Mary Cheh cited a recent study showing that crashes dropped 13% in Boise following the passage of a similar law in Idaho.
Insurance industry representatives said that this law would need to be coupled with a dedicated education effort. One witness from the insurance industry also objected to regulating bicycle insurance.
This bill comes from Mayor Bowser and is a companion to the forthcoming Vision Zero plan. Like the Safety Act, it would also mandate a Complete Streets system. Like the Distracted Driving Act, it would increase fines and add points for distracted driving violations.
In addition, it would enhance penalties for operating all-terrain vehicles and dirt bikes on District roads and require ignition interlock devices for repeat DUI offenders and high blood alcohol content (BAC) first-time offenders.
While supportive, WRAP, MADD and AAA all suggested that the bill instead require interlock devices for all DUI offenders, as 25 states do now.
In addition to the legislative changes mention above, both Cheh's working group report and the Vision Zero action plan recommended regulatory changes, some of which have been addressed by proposed rules that the Bowser administration proposed Friday.
These rules would:
- Require side underrun guards for certain vehicles.
- Require drivers to clear damaged but operational vehicles from the travel lanes.
- Require drivers to yield to buses merging into traffic.
- Designate certain streets as neighborhood slow zones with a maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour (and near high-risk areas like playgrounds, as low as 15 mph).
- Add points for several offenses such as overtaking another vehicle stopped at a crosswalk or intersection for a pedestrian.
- Increase fines for infractions such as driving more than 30 mph over the speed limit (including possible jail time), running a stop sign, driving on the sidewalk, unsafely opening a door into traffic, or striking a cyclist.
- Break the violation for parking in a bike lane into two categories, one for commercial vehicles and one for non-commercial vehicles, and raise the fine from $65 to $300 and $200 respectively.
Mary Cheh told the Washington Post she wanted to make sure "the mayor has authority" to raise the fines and asked, "Is there data that supports that this is something that will deter people from speeding? Otherwise people would think this is just a money raiser."
What else could be done?
In addition to formal changes to the law and regulations, the working group recommends other steps District agencies could take to improve safety. Some of these recommendations include:
- A universal street-safety education program for all elementary school students (which has already gone into effect).
- More automated cameras for enforcement.
- Greater "no right turn on red" restrictions in bike and pedestrian priority areas.
- Distributing more free bicycle lights.
- Equipping large District-owned vehicles with audible turn warnings.
- Providing more information about bicyclist insurance.
Many candidates in Virginia's election next week are criticizing plans to add tolls along with a new lane to I-66 inside the Beltway. But, and this is going to shock you, many of the things they are saying are wrong.
VDOT's plan would change I-66 inside the Beltway from HOV-2, where there are two lanes reserved (during rush hours) only for cars with two people, to HOT-3, where users would pay a toll unless there are three people in the car.
The plan would also improve bus transit in the area and enhance the bicycle and pedestrian system.
Some examples of what candidates are saying, from Dr. Gridlock, are below:
- Oct. 19 posting by Loudoun County Republican Jeanine Martin on the Bull Elephant blog: "Governor McAuliffe and the Democrats propose transforming one HOV-2 lane along I-66 into a $17 toll lane. And the tolls won't be used for road improvements; commuters would pay for bike paths and subsidizing mass transit. People in Loudoun would be paying for bike paths in Arlington and their Metro."
- From the campaign Web site of House Del. Dave LaRock (R-Loudoun): "The revenue from this tolling plan isn't slated to improve I-66 or relieve the massive traffic congestion that Northern Virginia struggles with. Governor McAuliffe's proposed tolls are going to 'multimodal transportation' projects—
that means Metro subsidies and bike paths among other things." The message includes links to Bike Arlington to illustrate "the kind of effort Arlington County goes to to force people onto 'car diets' and spend taxpayer money to promote biking!"
- Manassas Mayor Harry J. "Hal" Parrish II (R), candidate for state Senate in the 29th District, has a 30-second ad in which he says: "The Richmond politicians are at it again. They want us to pay $17 just to drive on I-66 inside the Beltway … Elect me, and we'll put a stop sign on any new toll on a road that you already paid for."
- House Majority Whip Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) said this in an Oct. 1 statement issued by GOP leaders in the General Assembly: "Asking commuters from Prince William, Manassas, Fairfax and Loudoun to pay such an outrageous amount for the privilege of sitting in the same unmoving lanes of traffic so Arlington can have nice new bike paths is unconscionable. Drivers who use both I-66 and the Dulles Toll Road could be stuck with $9,000 per year in fees. Governor McAuliffe's plan is a nonstarter."
In the report, toll revenue (about $12 million) would be used to offset operating costs for the HOT lanes ($1-$2 million), and the revenue may be used to fund operation costs of transit and bike and pedestrian programs if there is sufficient revenue. And even that is "dependent upon jurisdiction-level constraints on modal application."
It's likely to happen, but it's all a bit of a shell game, and even if tolling can pay for the capital and operating costs of the tolling, it's not expected to be sufficient to cover the transit operations as well, let alone bike and pedestrian projects, Transportation Demand Management, and Integrated Corridor Management.
Approximately $29 million in capital expenditures are required to implement tolling and it has been assumed that toll revenue will, at a minimum, completely offset the cost of operating the tolling system. Approximately $5 million in capital expenditures are necessary to implement the transit program included in the package, with an ongoing $23 million per year operating cost. Later in this section, priorities are offered for bicycle/pedestrian, TDM, and ICM improvements. The full complement of these improvements, included in all packages, is estimated to cost as follows: bicycle and pedestrian, $42 million capital; TDM, $5 million per year operating cost; and ICM, $6 million capital, $1 million per year operating cost....A conservative estimate of $24 million in annual revenue was calculated, determined solely by multiplying the tolls assumed in the model to maintain the LOS C/D level of traffic on I-66 by the number of non-HOV 3+ vehicles forecast to use the facility.But the toll revenue would be about half as much, the study concluded, if tolling were only done during peak periods—
It's also not entirely true there won't be any road improvements since there will be dynamic merge/junction control, traveler information improvements and a future widening study. Also, this plan dates back to 2012, which means it's not really Governor McAuliffe's.
When LaRock says that money from the tolling isn't slated to relieve traffic congestion, he's wrong, and he's ignoring the other goals of the project. By paying for tolling, transit, TDM, ICM and bike/ped projects, the complete multi-modal package is expected to bring down congestion as a percentage of vehicle miles traveled (though total congestion will go up, as there will be more users) when compared to the baseline.
In other words, more people will deal with congestion, but each person will have fewer congested miles.
But despite what Miller says, the tolls will not pay for nice new bike paths in Arlington. Most off those paths are already in the plans, and they will likely be paid for by the same sources they were going to be paid for otherwise. But there will not be a straight payment from toll revenue to Arlington bike paths. People will be tolled and revenue gained (theoretically) and then bike paths will be built. But one does not do the other. In fact, in alternatives without tolling, the same bike/ped projects are still recommended.
In addition, right now no one pays these tolls because no one can. If you want to drive on I-66 inside the beltway in an single-occupancy vehicle, you can forget about it. Under the VDOT plan, you'd have the option of paying the toll. As Dr. Gridlock writes, if you don't want to pay them, "You could just keep doing what you're doing." If you're already "sitting in the same unmoving lanes," you won't have to pay because you must already be an HOV user.
I've probably covered this before, since it's three years old, but just to rehash it, many of the bicycle and pedestrian enhancements in the report come from existing plans in the area and others come from stakeholder inputs or identified needs.
The report includes 60 bike/ped projects which include trail improvements to the Mt.Vernon, Custis, Four Mile Run, W&OD, Route 110, Washington Blvd and Arlington Blvd Trails; connector trails; bike facilities added to the Route 27 bridge over Route 110 and the Meade Bridge; bikeshare expansion and parking additions along the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor and in Falls Church; Rosslyn Circle improvements, including a tunnel; bike lanes; and bike parking at Metro Stations. The list is too long to go into, so if curious, you should check it out starting on page 3-76 of the report.
They assigned a benefit for each of these projects and those that rated the highest were (and some others just of interest):
- Widen the Mount Vernon shared-use trail between the Roosevelt Island Bridge over the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Four Mile Run Trail
- Construct a trail to link the sidewalk along the south side of the Roosevelt Bridge directly to the Mount Vernon Trail
- Renovate Custis trail sections with asphalt cracking and washout, and, where feasible, widen the Custis Trail to 12 feet.
- Construct a 10-foot wide sidepath from City of Fairfax to existing Arlington Boulevard trail in Arlington (may include some use of existing frontage roads)
- Improve the Arlington Boulevard trail from Taft Street to Fort Myer Drive and from Pershing to Queen.
- Construct sidepath on west side of Arlington Boulevard from Washington Boulevard to North Fairfax Drive
- Rehabilitate Arlington Boulevard Trail from Glebe Road to Park Drive
- Construct a short segment of Mount Vernon trail between North Randolph Street and the Fairfax line, following an existing sanitary sewer easement near Pimmit Run. Extend the Mount Vernon Trail from its current terminus at Theodore Roosevelt Island using existing trails, bicycle lanes, and proposed bicycle lanes in Arlington.
- Build bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Beltway from George C. Marshall Drive to Tysons Executive Court
A version of this post originally ran on TheWashCycle.
When you ride the Metropolitan Branch Trail into Brookland, it merges with 8th Street NE until it hits Monroe Street, where people on bike have to line up in traffic and wait to use the crosswalk. While DDOT once decided against building a tunnel under Monroe that would keep bikes and cars separate, the idea could come back to life.
DDOT's 2005 Metropolitan Branch Trail Concept Plan included two possible options for crossing Monroe Street, both of which proposed a path that ran along the railroad tracks between Monroe Street and Michigan Avenue.
The first, Option A1, would take the path through a tunnel under Monroe and then on a path across a wooded lot to the south, which would lead to a mid-block crossing at 8th Street.
A rendering of the potential Monroe Street tunnel. Image from DDOT.
The second, Option A2, would have the path follow Monroe west to its intersection with 8th Street and send riders across at grade rather than using a tunnel. DDOT settled on this option.
Trail options from the Metropolitan Branch Trail Concept Plan. Image from DDOT.
A tunnel could be in the cards after all
In the ten years since the MBT plan came out, the path between Michigan and Monroe went in as part of the Arts Walk and Monroe Street Market and the wooded lot south of Monroe has become the Edgewood Arts Center.
DDOT has announced plans to replace/rehabilitate the Monroe Street Bridge in FY2020, which could yield a chance to build a tunnel (which would make for a better trail).
While DDOT staff is concerned that there isn't room for the trail anymore because of the Arts Center, I believe there is.
The trail could reach the railroad tracks by going east off of 8th Street through the gravel parking lot that runs along the Arts Center's retaining wall.
The Arts Center, from 8th Street. The railroad tracks are just beyond the trees. Image from Google Streetview.
There's a "green" strip of trees, about 27 feet wide, that sits between the Arts Center and the railroad track fence. That space could be used to have trail run like this:
Property ownership and resident resistance might very well be issues, but the space itself should not be. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to build this facility, and we shouldn't dismiss the opportunity lightly.
People who want to ride a bike north-south along the east side of DC's central business district and in Shaw could soon have a new protected bikeway to do it. A new study recommends four options, including 6th Street NW, 5th and 6th, or 9th.
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has been studying options for a bikeway to connect areas between Florida and Constitution Avenues. This bikeway would connect central DC neighborhoods, downtown, and the existing major east-west bikeways like the one on Pennsylvania Avenue.
This area has high levels of bicycling and many popular destinations but a distinct lack of quality bike facilities. Currently, 7th Street has the most bicycle traffic, but usage is pretty evenly spread out. 5th stands out because a large number of people ride south on 5th despite the road being one-way north.
DDOT planners studied an assortment of designs, considering every street between 4th and 9th. They first eliminated 4th and 8th because they were discontinuous streets. After a round of data gathering, where they looked at parking, parking utilization, auto and bicycle traffic, transit, potential pedestrian conflicts, cost, loading zones, events, and institutions along the route, they eliminated 7th Street because of heavy transit and pedestrian usage; they didn't want the bikeway to become an auxiliary sidewalk.
Data on transit ridership (left), pedestrian volume (center), and Capital Bikeshare usage (right) in the study area. Images from DDOT.
During this whole process, they have also been involved in a public outreach effort, meeting with institutions, businesses, churches, council staff, and other stakeholders. With data screening complete, there are four alternatives which they have made public and plan to discuss at an upcoming public meeting. After that, they will narrow the alternatives to three, which will get more intensive study and planning before choosing a preferred alternative sometime this winter.
Here are the alternatives:
5th and 6th couplet: Alternative 1 would place a one-way northbound protected bikeway on the east side of 5th Street up to New York Avenue and a painted bike lane north of that. A one-way southbound bikeway would go on the west side of 6th.
This would remove a travel lane on 6th north of New York and a parking lane south of there. On 6th south of New York Avenue, the bikeway would be adjacent to a rush hour travel/off-peak parking lane converted from what is now a southbound travel lane. While DDOT considered using angled parking on 6th, that didn't make it into the final design.
One-way on on each side of 6th: Alternative 2, would replace a travel lane in each direction on 6th Street with a one-way protected bikeway on each side. South of New York Avenue the bikeways would be adjacent to a rush hour travel/off-peak parking lane.
Bi-directional on 6th: Alternative 3 would remove a northbound travel lane north of New York Avenue and a parking lane south of New York and would convert a northbound travel lane to a rush hour travel/off-peak parking lane to make room for a bi-directional protected bikeway on the east side of 6th. This is similar to what exists on 15th Street (though the one on 15th is on the west side).
Bi-directional on 9th: Alternative 4 is like Alternative 3, but on 9th Street. A northbound travel lane north of Massachusetts Avenue and a parking lane south of Massachusetts Avenue would disappear, while a northbound travel lane would become an rush hour travel/off-peak parking lane. This would make room for a bi-directional protected bikeway on the east side of 9th. The southbound bike-bus lane would remain.
Bike planners are looking at numerous factors in deciding which to eliminate next. All the alternatives have similar expected travel times for cyclists, so that will not be a factor. But they will be considering turns across bike facilities, pedestrian intensity next to the bikeway, the amount of protection along the facility, and other safety factors.
As one example, the Verizon Center often shuts down a lane on the west side of 6th Street for loading for shows. That could be an obstacle for Alternative 2. There may be similar challenges in other spots for the other alternatives.
The planners will look at which designs affect buses the least, and how to deal with the unique parking needs of churches to accommodate their loading and unloading requirements, large event needs, funeral needs, etc.
Alternative 1 provides the least protection. DDOT has decided not to remove on-street parking in residential areas, which limits 5th street to painted bike lanes north of New York. Another consideration for 5th Street is that it has fewer stop lights, but more stop signs and some speed bumps.
In Alternative 4, 9th is one-way south of Massachusetts, so northbound cyclists would be going the opposite direction from car traffic, meaning it would suffer from the same light timing issues as 15th Street does. Timed lights on 15th mean people riding north hit more red lights than on a typical street.
DDOT has a website with all the designs which is accepting comments. The team is planning a public meeting soon, but haven't settled on details. If a final design is chosen this winter, work could begin before the end of 2016.
Which design do do you think is best?
- I don't care what some people say: DC has great transportation options.
- The biggest beneficiaries of housing subsidies? The wealthy.
- Clearly we need to have more happy hours in Prince George's
- Metro badly needs culture change, everyone agrees. Can it pull it off?
- How five local businesspeople would tackle gentrification on 14th Street
- VRE's map keeps getting more diagrammatic
- Think you know Metro? It's whichWMATA week 90