Comments on A 4th option for M Street SE/SW - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Simon

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:11:08 EDT

@ steve.

I went back and re read my post. I was up for a couple days there and it doesn't make sense. I would eliminate the bike lane and set a speed limit slow enough to keep bicycles safe for that stretch where there is not enough room for bicycle lanes.

I do see the issue with bicycles crossing at anything less than a 45 degree angle. I just don't think trains combined with traffic is safe. I prefer Light Rail if it is separated from other traffic, pedestrians, and cyclist. But I think the risk is to great and BRT is safer (even though I believe rail is superior to busses) in those conditions.

Comment by Eric

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:09:51 EDT

The wider facilities in CPH were on roads with no parking, but some did run next to dedicate bus lanes.

Comment by David C

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:08:53 EDT

Eric, were those cycle facilities in Copenhagen next to parking? Because I think 3 of the 8 feet in the design above is to remove the door zone.

I agree that M is the best route across Near SE/SW now. But it doesn't have to be that way. Eye could be just as good - if not better once you consider trees. Put some sharrows in the right lane of M and set up some speed cameras to make M usable by cyclists.

Comment by Eric

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:31:49 EDT

Good job in trying to find a solution that would satisfy both the bicycling and transit communities. It's unfortunate when it comes down to a battle for space between these two much needed modes.

Having just come back from Copenhagen, where cycle tracks are the norm and volumes of cyclists extremely high, I tend to think that 8 foot cycle tracks might not be necessary. The busiest biking street I saw had 8 ft wide one way cycle tracks that allowed two people to ride next to each other and still provided a little room for passing. The volume on that street was probably 15k-20k cyclists a day. While I wish we'd see that type of usage, we have a ways to go.

Keeping the bike facilities on M is important. M is the most direct connection between the sections of the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail that will be built along with new development along the waterfront, and the sections of the trail east of 11th Street SE. Bikes already get shoved off main routes (see H Street, Columbia Pike in the future) in favor of streetcars, but they can work together if the space is there. The potential conflicts between cyclists and transit riders if the facilities run next to each other would be less than the conflicts that would come from running either in the middle like Penn Ave.

Comment by Steven Harrell

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:44:12 EDT

@Simon, under that setup, the bikelane would need to be between the car lanes and the streetcar lane-- which might be an uncomfortable and dangerous fit-- or else the bikers would need to cross over the streetcar tracks in order to ride in the sharrow'd lane once the bike lane ended. It's not a good idea for bikes to cross over streetcar tracks at anything less than a 45 degree angle. That said, if the transit lane is raised up a bit, and the bike lane had a good buffer zone on both sides, that might work.

I was only half joking about reconnecting N Street to Maine and Water with a cycle-track. Well-connected, continuous, well-shaded, two-way bike boulevards on I and Virginia; and on Maine and N, with good N-S streets to connect the two would be more than enough to give bikers first-class infrastructure without setting tire on M Street. With bikes off M, we can build streetcar on M Street to our hearts content, with only the "real" cars left to say "no".

But just to clarify, because I'm also new here: DC only intends to build the streetcar tracks, right? I'm sure they'll buy some streetcars to store at Greenbelt, but they aren't actually talking about running the things, are they?! I mean, that would just be weird.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:43:33 EDT

I like the I street bike lanes. I would put transit lanes on M street, keep the I street bike lanes as they are (I think that still leaves good capacity for motor vehicles) and possibly add bike lanes/cycle tracks to N/Tingey. Reconnecting the grid at K will add capacity for motor vehicles. Cyclists who are comfortable riding in traffic can stay on M Street.

Comment by Simon

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:00:50 EDT

I'm not from the DC area. How long is this stretch where the street is to narrow to support both bicycle and transit? If the stretch is not that long then why don't they put the bicycle lanes in where there is space and the rest of the space drop the speed to 20 or even 15. Make bicycles and cars share the lanes.

Comment by David C

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:54:41 EDT

kk, many people in the other 50% could bike - they just don't. True, there are some people for whom biking will never be an option is transit is great for serving their needs. I'm all for transit. But it's a false choice that pits the two against each other. In reality, they support one another and that is to some extent the point of this post.

I wouldn't rank these in any way at all. The goals are mobility, cleanliness, efficiency, utility, health, safety, etc.... Transit is a good way to achieve those goals and so is biking. When you make any one mode the goal, you make the same mistake that car-centric urban planners made in the past.

Cyclists need a way to travel in this area, we should not throw them under the streetcar.

Comment by kk

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:19 EDT

@ David C

What about the other 50% percent I could list many individuals whom have never used a bike in their lives from age 7 to 96.

I'm looking at it from a point of who can use what only a few of the population can bike. But everyone whom is not bedridden could use a bus or train. A blind person, a person whom can not walk that is in a wheelchair, a pregnant person (usually), a able bodied person, older person etc can all use a bus or train but can they all use a bike no.

I believe the priority should be train/bus/streetcar, then sidewalk and then bikelane and private automobile.

Comment by David C

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:52:40 EDT

kk, not to contradict your point that transit serves more people than bikes - which is surely true, but according to one study 50% of Americans will ride a bike at least once this year. And it's not the same 50% every year.

Comment by kk

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:44:44 EDT

Why do we focus so much on bike lanes when most of the residents of the city will and have never rode a bike outside of childhood if that. Bike lanes only serve a few but transit has probably served every person in DC at one point either by bus, rail or streetcar (if old enough).

Comment by Transport.

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:49:28 EDT

I agree with @Sally. Regardless of making the point that M Street should include all modes, as someone who bikes, I'd much rather bike along an alternate, nearby parallel route with less pedestrians, less overall street activity, and shade is nice too -- I didn't think of that -- in the summer.

I see no problem with mainly accommodating vehicles and transit along M and enhancing the biking experience along I and N. Just because DDOT and CH2M didn't recommend bike lanes doesn't mean DDOT and CH2M are hostile toward bike use. It's not as if AAA made the recommendations.

Comment by wd

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:31:56 EDT

I like the trees in the median on Maine Ave. I don't want anything to take that median out, and would love to see it extended eastward.

I really don't think we need a cycle track on M St. Save that for I St. Enforce the speed limit of 25 on M and many riders can take the lane.

Comment by Another Josh

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:16:29 EDT

As an employee of a company that recently moved to M St SE, this is all very interesting. Whatever is decided, hopefully it gets done soon, before the next wave of development happens.

I don't think cycle tracks should go on N St at Nationals Park. I'd hate for the track to be closed off for games and other events as N St, and even if the track wasn't closed, dealing with the pedestrians at that time would be a pain. It would be nice to keep bike and transit on M, but it wouldn't be terrible if bikes got moved to I St, possibly with improved facilities there.

Comment by David C

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:15:58 EDT

This is definitely better.

But, I'm moving more and more towards a bicycle boulevard on I street. I'd leave one lane of traffic in each direction but not allow it to go all the way through. With visual cues and a 20 mph speed limit I'd get cars to slow down and I'd time the lights to maximize bike traffic. There is not much that M Street gets you that I doesn't, and for what there is, I'd make sure there are good connections N/S.

But, I also like this and I would be happy with it.

Comment by Alex B.

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:31:33 EDT

I don't know that I like the transit lane and the cycletrack side by side - lots of conflicts there, and the Vancouver example requires a lot more space at stations than is shown in these sections.

Someone suggested the cycletrack in the center lanes, a la Pennsylvania Ave. Perhaps, but I'd also like to see someone consider the dedicated transitway in the center lanes.

I also don't think there's an innate need to cram a cycletrack and transit lanes and regular car lanes into one street section. The section posted above has only 7.5 foot wide sidewalks (very narrow for the kind of density of development expected here) and would appear to have no room for treeboxes or other street furniture - meaning the effective width of the sidewalk would be even narrower.

Comment by Steven Harrell

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:09:06 EDT

Yeah, I definitely like this better. Thanks!

It's too bad we can't continue the N St cycle track further west to Water Street. There's already a path between 1st St SW and Delaware, it wouldn't be too hard to get from Water to the western end of N St, and we can build a nice iconic bridge over that pool between Delaware and 4th.

Comment by Sally

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:48:08 EDT

Like many who commented on your posting about M street options a few days back, I'd much rather cycle on I, which is quieter than M and has much more shade.

Comment by DE

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:04:23 EDT

For the wide section, you've got 8-ft. cycle tracks on both sides. Why not make them standard 5-ft. lanes, and reserving 3-ft. wide strips (raised to curb height, to provide both separation and easier embarking) for streetcar patrons to wait? Alternatively you could do a single bi-directional cycle track on one side of the street, of 10-12 feet in width. That allows the streetcar to be sidewalk-adjacent on one side of the street, and gives you a more comfortable 4-6 feet for the passenger platform on the other side.

Comment by Dave Murphy

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:20:29 EDT

What about putting a cycle track in the middle, like on Pennsylvania Avenue? Is this a viable option?

Comment by Aaron

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:17:26 EDT

Is it possible to remake the street so that transit runs entirely on the north side, auto traffic runs on the south side, and bikes have dedicated lanes in between the two (separated by plastic bollards)? In other words, from north to south:

North Sidewalk (10)
Transit (11)
Platform (10)
Transit (11)
plastic bollards
Bike (8)
Bike (8)
plastic bollards
Automobile (10)
Automobile - left only (10)
Automobile (10)
South Sidewalk (10)

Comment by Allan

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:15:32 EDT

Did you not consider putting transit in the middle?

Comment by Steven Yates

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:53:26 EDT

My first thought on the conflict between transit lanes and cycle tracks on M St. would be to move the cycle tracks to the middle of the street (like we see on Pennsylvania Ave. NW). But I wonder if it's worth it for the 5 blocks the cycle track would be on M (following the scenario where the path diverts on Half SW). Also, Half St. SW is one way south so you would essentially have to build a 15th St style-cycle track and I think that would necessitate removing a parking lane which could be politically unfeasible in a residential neighborhood (though maybe you could squeeze it in while maintaining parking). So instead of trying to squeeze everything on M St., I think the focus should be on maintaining (or even improving) the facilities on I St.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:29:18 EDT

sorry "automobile transit" should have been automobility or motor vehicle mobility.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:28:17 EDT

This is a good suggestion for going forward. The thing about the M St. study is as much as DDOT is looking to the future, the reality is that the future for this corridor is beyond our imagination. In 20+ years, the M St. corridor linking SE and SW will be an incredibly vibrant and connected mixed use district, probably one of the most successful in the city, like Connecticut Ave. in Dupont Circle. .... which is incredible considering where these districts have been over the past 30 years.

As a result, not prioritizing sustainable transportation and de-privileging automobile transit will be a big mistake.