DDOT will remove "no peds no bikes" sign on Broad Branch

Roads

DDOT will remove "no peds no bikes" sign on Broad Branch

by Stephen Miller • July 7, 2011 12:46 pm

How does DDOT's Complete Streets policy affect projects? A recent bridge replacement has raised the question of whether DDOT is actually living up to its own policy. In response to criticism, they are removing a sign which prohibited bicycles and pedestrians from the temporary bridge.

Photo by Michael D.

In mid-April, the Broad Branch Road bridge over Soapstone Creek collapsed. This received attention from council members Muriel Bowser and Mary Cheh, whose constituents were affected by the closure. In June, it was replaced with a temporary bridge. The permanent bridge is scheduled to be rebuilt and completed in mid-September 2011.

Signage installed at the temporary bridge prohibits cyclists and pedestrians from using the bridge at all. Fortunately, DDOT has agreed to remove the problematic sign. However, the agency's real Complete Streets problem lies not with this project but in the business-as-usual designs of the agency's larger street reconstruction projects.

For many advocates, the prohibition on nonmotorized users at Broad Branch Road was a bad indicator. Bridges are traditionally choke points where bicycle and pedestrian access is critical. Why would DDOT install a facility it considers insufficient to handle bicycles and pedestrians, and then restrict their use entirely?

Because the temporary bridge is a structure DDOT already had available, it came with some restrictions if a temporary facility were to be installed quickly. Most notably, the bridge has a single 13-foot wide lane and no sidewalks. As a result, vehicles traveling on this bidirectional roadway must alternate in order to cross the bridge. Because of these movements and the narrow bridge width, DDOT explained in press releases that it "discourages" cyclists and pedestrians from using the bridge.

The signage installed did more than discourage, however. It entirely prohibited cyclists and pedestrians. In a phone call with us, DDOT representatives explained that the sign was too restrictive and would be removed.

DDOT was under pressure to install a temporary bridge at this location. In order to do so cost-effectively, it had to use a bridge already in its possession. The agency could not responsibly encourage all cyclists and pedestrians on a substandard bridge but did not want to prohibit expert users who needed to use the facility and could do so safely. Hence, the "discourage" policy.

While this policy is not anyone's ideal, it is understandable. This policy seems to abide by the Complete Streets philosophy by allowing access but not encouraging use of a substandard temporary facility. This is only acceptable because the bridge's temporary nature, and political pressure from the adjacent council members will help ensure its final replacement by mid-September.

The Broad Branch Road bridge doesn't violate the Complete Streets policy, but is DDOT following it with its other, more permanent projects? Next, we'll take a look at street reconstruction projects, including some constructed before the policy was issued, and one identified as a "complete street" by DDOT Director Terry Bellamy in his confirmation testimony.

Many DDOT projects do take all road users into account, but not always to the extent they should. In order to be meaningful, DDOT's complete streets policy should have an impact on the agency's projects. It's not yet clear that it has.

16 comments

Tags: bicycling, bike safety, complete streets, DDOT, pedestrian safety, Rock Creek, windshield perspective

DDOT now has a Complete Streets policy (Oct 20, 2010)
The waiting game: Two intersections now safer for pedestrians (Aug 26, 2009)
Bikes at National Harbor: Better too little, too late than never? (Jul 1, 2009)
DDOT will extend successful 15th Street cycle track (Sep 7, 2010)
DDOT may cancel L and M Street cycle tracks (Jun 27, 2011)

Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program.

Comments
Add a comment »

Again "rights" have replaced common sense. And the first person to sue will be someone on the bridge because the sign was removed...tort lawyers rejoice...

by Some Ideas on Jul 7, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report

There never has been decent pedestrian access to Broad Branch road west from Rock Creek Park. There are no sidewalks leading west from the paved bike trail. No real shoulder either. You always had to dodge cars or maybe take the very strenuous hiking path that leads into the woods.

by George Gauthier on Jul 7, 2011 1:18 pm • link • report

Again "rights" have replaced common sense. And the first person to sue will be someone on the bridge because the sign was removed...tort lawyers rejoice...

The speed limit on the bridge is 10MPH (per the video) and cars have to alternate to cross. Doesn't seem like a dangerous situation for peds and bikes to me. As was discussed on the Washcycle post linked in the article, the same situation has existed in Silver Spring for years without problem.

by MLD on Jul 7, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report

The real shame is that Broad Branch as well as Park RD (from Mount Pleasant down to Beach Drive) have ALWAYS been hostile to recreation. They and other streets in Rock Creek Park have no recreation trails alongside them. Joggers, myself included, still jog on them from time to time though. I will say most motorists are respectful but there are certainly a handful that get frustrated at sharing the road and some that even honk thinking we have no right to be there.
The truth is Park Road down to Pierce Mill is the best entry point to Rock Creek for most of MTP. Klingle Road/Porter between MTP and Rock Creek is a de facto freeway that doesn't end at a point of interest. Buses and trucks do near double the speed limit there and when a bus goes that fast by you it kicks up a lot of debris in its wake, pollen and leaf debris that ends up in your eyes etc. Also hubcaps have twice flown off of vehicles on Klingle and nearly taken out my shins.
Park Rd by comparison has calmer traffic due to the winding road and no buses or trucks. It also ends at the Mill which is a recreation hub. So to not have a trail or sidewalk there is truly unfortunate. Families could walk their children to the Mill instead of driving the short distance as they do now. The other alternative is to access the trails at Harvard Street but when the bridge to the zoo is closed that means running across rock creek parkway.
I have always marveled at how Mount Pleasant, a neighborhood enveloped in Rock Creek Park has such horrible access to it.
end rant.

by Johnny on Jul 7, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

The photo does not include the double fine sign. DOT is backtracking from the initial policy of stationing two DOT staff at the bridge who "warned" me Park Police were going to be ticketing cyclists crossing the bridge. The DOT staff also reminded me the fines would be doubled.

I'm glad the signs are coming down and glad it took only a week or two for DOT to change their policy, That's impressive for a bureaucracy, but its still troubling they began with such an anti cyclist policy and had to be told to change it.

Also this bridge has been expensive. DOT has had staff and equipment on the site for a long time. If the bridge is really being replaced in only six weeks they spent a huge a mount of money for maybe 2 months of substandard access. My guess is the cost of the temporary bridge is easily over 100K,. Money that could have been used much more efficiently for long term projects.

by Michael D on Jul 7, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report

The ban on peds and bikes made no sense when you consider
(a) its right next to a National Park
(b) its the only connection for (literally) miles.

by SJE on Jul 7, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report

The ban made absolutely no sense.

1) People take turns crossing the bridge. It's like any other stop controlled intersection. What's the difference between this small bridge and any other situation in which cars have to stop and wait for a pedestrian or bike?

2) The above assumes one-at-a-time crossing. But this article says the lane is 13 feet wide.

That means the bridge can be striped as:

9 foot bi-directional car lane
4 foot bidirectional pedestrian/bike lane

Look, Ive solved the "no sidewalk" problem with $20 of paint.

by JJJJJ on Jul 7, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report

@Johnny: when Park Rd was reconstructed in 2007, DDOT tried to add a sidewalk but NPS, which owns the land on either side of the road, wouldn't allow it. This was discussed at an ANC meeting, as I recall. It is a shame.

by Mk on Jul 7, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

@JJJJ that's in jest right? Unless you want both cars and bikers going splat on the side walls that's a terrible idea.

@most everyone else: have you all ever been on broad branch? It is a terrible road for bikers (and a much, much worse road for pedestrians) because it is already very narrow with dicey sightlines. You can't build a path there because as it is the road bed is the entire width that can be supported between the creek and the hill....I'm basically supportive of bike infrastructure, but I'm not anti cars, I'm anti stupid in both directions. Getting your panties in a bunch about temporary bridge in a place that's already dangerous to bike is stupid.

by stinkykoala on Jul 7, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report

This road is the only direct access from most of Chevy Chase DC to the lower part of Rock Creek Park. Banning bikes from the bridge is an huge impediment, not an inconvenience, temporary or otherwise. And I've biked that stretch hundreds of times without incident--it's not particularly dangerous.

by Crikey7 on Jul 7, 2011 6:06 pm • link • report

stinkykoala, the bridge speed limit is 10mph. If you cant keep your 7 foot wide car within a 9 foot wide marked space then throw away your license.

by JJJJJ on Jul 7, 2011 7:13 pm • link • report

^^Maybe some people will have trouble, so make it an 10 ft. car lane and a 3 ft. bike/ped lane. If a person can't keep their bike within a 3 ft. wide space they should throw away their license.

by Bob See on Jul 7, 2011 7:28 pm • link • report

It also occurs to me that everything stinkykoala says about that part of Broad Branch applies as equally, if not more so, to cars as it does to "bikers". Plenty of cars have come to grief on that stretch of road. Maybe it's too dangerous for cars, and should be limited to cyclists.

by Crickey7 on Jul 7, 2011 7:42 pm • link • report

As of about 5:45 Thursday evening DOT had not removed the signs, although they have added a new giant 10 MPH sign and a bigger Double Fines sign.

This evening a DOT staff was still standing at the bridge telling cyclists they can't cross the bridge. I stopped and spoke to the staff, wearing an orange vest and DOT badge, whose job appeared to be directing the 2 or or three bikes or cars crossing the bridge each minute, if I could cross. He said I could cross "At my own discretion." As he is telling me this another cyclist rode past him and he yelled "No bikes."

The sign says No Bikes, DOT is yelling at cyclists "No bikes", but if you ask nicely you can cross "At your own discretion". The Policy could not be less clear.

If DOT is really going to remove the sign then someone at DOT needs to spend 30 seconds on the phone telling the DOT staff to stop yelling at cyclists. I was told at the bridge that they had heard nothing about the sign coming down and they did not think it would be removed.

by Michael D. on Jul 7, 2011 9:54 pm • link • report

Maybe it would have been safer it the sign had said "peds and bikes only."

by Scoot on Jul 8, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

As of 2:30 today the signs are still up.

Judging by the reaction to cyclists of the several staff DOT seems to have tasked with the vital job of hanging around the bridge all day I'm pretty skeptical the signs will be removed.

by Michael D. on Jul 8, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report