A Walgreen's with a soda fountain in Del Ray would really bring out the pitchforks.

by spookiness on Mar 20, 2013 10:22 am • link • report

Can someone explain to me how if a GPS transponder is turned on, you only get 90% accuracy?

And according to the article, 20% of buses aren't using nextbus. 13-15 don't have working equipment, and 5% don't turn them on.

My math might be off, but that looks like that means something like 1 in 4 buses aren't reporting accurate information to nextbus.

by charlie on Mar 20, 2013 10:30 am • link • report

Am I the only one who wasn't familiar with the term vehicular cyclist, from the streetsblog article?

It looks like they are cyclists who just want to follow the rules that cars follow on roads. I had been wondering if they were motorized bike drivers!

by Austin on Mar 20, 2013 10:34 am • link • report

I can guess two things, charlie.
1. The 90% is the accuracy of the prediction. The location may be right, but not all conditions can be accounted for.
2. GPS can struggle in urban environments.

by selxic on Mar 20, 2013 10:40 am • link • report

I can see my iphone struggle with GPS. However, a dedicated GPS chipset has absolutely no problem unless they are underground. Nice thing about height limits.

And while I understand the prediction part is hard -- depends on traffic -- at least throwing it up on the map should not be difficult.

by charlie on Mar 20, 2013 10:45 am • link • report

It's not so much that Vehicular cyclists want bikes to follow the same rules of the road. It's that they espouse that the only thing to keep cyclists safe is to act the same as a car would.

So always taking the full width of the lane. Staying out of the bike lane and so forth. Politics makes strange bedfellows since a vehicular cyclist is someone not easy to pass which could anger some drivers.

by drumz on Mar 20, 2013 10:47 am • link • report

It's that they espouse that the only thing to keep cyclists safe is to act the same as a car would.

Follow up: so bike lanes and similar infrastructure is moot and they claim it makes cycling more dangerous.

by drumz on Mar 20, 2013 10:48 am • link • report

Technically Somerville is a city next to Cambridge, and just near Boston.

As for Next Bus, I wish the apps would show me where the bus actually is. The web app does this but I've never seen a smart phone app do it. It would help me cut through Next Bus's often flawed predictions. For instance, when it says the G2 heading west of Dupont is only a minute away, I personally know that when it's still east of the circle, it's actually more like 3 minutes away. Also, seeing actual locations would possibly address times when nextBus just drops a bus from the system due to it sitting in traffic.

by TM on Mar 20, 2013 10:52 am • link • report

Politics makes strange bedfellows since a vehicular cyclist is someone not easy to pass which could anger some drivers.

It depends who the drivers hate more. In this case I think that they are more angry at the prospect of the social/political acceptance of bicycles that bike lanes represents. Everyone hates that guy biking in the middle of the lane, and his presence isn't a threat to the social order in that regard. But spending money on bike lanes and having people use them means that bicyclists are "getting stuff" that rightfully belongs to the drivers, and that is something they will not stand for.

by JustMe on Mar 20, 2013 10:55 am • link • report

Technically Somerville is a city next to Cambridge, and just near Boston.

Charlestown is part of Boston, and Charlestown shares a border with Somerville. So, technically, yes, Somerville is "next to" Boston.

by JustMe on Mar 20, 2013 10:57 am • link • report

TM: Somerville borders Charlestown on the east, which is a part of Boston. Yes, Cambridge is between most of Somerville and most of Boston and the Somerville-Cambridge border is far longer than the Somerville-Boston one, but it's still next to Boston :)

by David Alpert on Mar 20, 2013 10:57 am • link • report

justme

I think its less ideological than that. Folks driving down a road would rather have the bike lane, and not share the lane. Folks who live in the area would rather have the parking. Here in FFX where on street parking simply isn't that big an issue, you hear people who make all the usual complaints about cyclists, who seem generally okay with bike lanes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 10:59 am • link • report

@JustMe; I'm sure it has nothing to do with drivers looking at oversized bike lanes (such as the new one on L) while stuck in traffic and wondering why it is empty and not being used for cars.

by charlie on Mar 20, 2013 11:00 am • link • report

Charlie,
But some times I see that a block is empty of cars and yet I'm not perplexed as to why no one is driving on that street.

by drumz on Mar 20, 2013 11:03 am • link • report

Where is there traffic on L St? I have never experienced it.

by sk on Mar 20, 2013 11:14 am • link • report

Interesting use of the phrase "city next to". GGW doesn't tend to use it when referring to Alexandria, Arlington, or Bethesda. I tend to see the phrase "suburb".
Any reason for the choice?

by MW on Mar 20, 2013 11:23 am • link • report

Am I the only one who wasn't familiar with the term vehicular cyclist, from the streetsblog article?

Nope. Neither was I and initially thought it was simply DAl's choice phrasing.

I had long been fans of NextBus but it's been shoddy for the past couple of months. My commuting can put me on at least 5 different buses and the timing has been totally off. Just this morning I boarded a bus that NextBus said was 9 minutes away. I've long complained about drivers who drive w/o putting their bus "in service' and that has gotten better. But not turning on the device is inexcusable.

Somewhat interesting article about the Examiner's editor and what he considered its "down the middle" reporting.

by HogWash on Mar 20, 2013 11:25 am • link • report

"The Post is a paper that — I don’t want to say this the wrong way — has taken the old newspaper goal of looking out for the little guy, I think, farther than the people who came up with that theory ever had in mind. We saw an opening for, well, what about the taxpayer?"

Cause little guys are not taxpayers. Looks like theyve swallowed the "47%" thing.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 11:30 am • link • report

@MW -- it could be a regional difference, but growing up in New England, most of the towns surrounding major cities are themselves more than 250 years old, so saying that they're a suburb of some other city is not often done. This is especially the case in Rhode Island, in which many of the towns have maintained their historic downtowns, and some have even escaped massive strip-mall and subdivision-mania that some associate with suburbs. Part of the historic reason is that many of the close-in cities and towns in Massachusetts and RI didn't have many large farms that could be converted into new mega-developments.

On a more technical note, of Arlington, Bethesda and Alexandria, only the last is a city, so that might be part of the designation of suburb.

by Jacques on Mar 20, 2013 11:36 am • link • report

Alexandria is a city, Arlington a county, and Bethesda a census designated place. Somerville is a city, and at 18,000 per sq mile, is about twice as dense as Alexandria (and far denser than DC, BTW)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 11:39 am • link • report

@Jacques-Bethesda is a city. It has a mayor and it looks and acts like a city.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 11:39 am • link • report

@Tina-

Umm, Bethesda is not a city. Who is mayor? It has a BID, but it is not an incorporated city.

by thesixteenwords on Mar 20, 2013 11:44 am • link • report

...oops I confused Bethesda w/ Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase has a mayor

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 11:46 am • link • report

oversized bike lanes

They are large enough to accommodate a single bicycle, and thus not oversized in any way I can conceive of.

Also, K, not L, is the main artery for drivers.

by JustMe on Mar 20, 2013 11:47 am • link • report

@charlie -- the only reason that the cycle track is larger than a standard bike lane is that DDOT wanted to incorporate the left-turning motor vehicles into the lane. Most cyclists who use the lane (as I did on my morning commute today) would probably prefer that the lane be 50% narrower than it is, in part to solve the problem of delivery vehicles deciding it's a convenient loading zone.

by Jacques on Mar 20, 2013 11:49 am • link • report

@charlie-You haven't lost a lane on L, it was parking before. Even when it wasn't parking it was still used for left hand turns. That meant that anyone who was in the left-most lane had to change lanes to continue straight, causing a "wave" type delay to all the drivers behind them. I'd be shocked if the DDOT report shows any significant delays after installation of the cycletrack to drivers. I actually expect to see a slight reduction in time, considering there is far less stopping and starting now, and auto traffic flow seems far better with less "hurry up and wait" and FAR LESS random lane changing. Most of the delays you seem to think have happened occur @ L & Conn/L & 17th block where the far right lane and often the second lane from the right have beenout of commission due to construction for the last few months. Any other delay is b/c it's difficult for cars to turn w/ the amount of pedestrian traffic. That has nothing at all to do w/ the cycletrack.

by thump on Mar 20, 2013 11:50 am • link • report

@Jacques-I would not prefer that the lane be narrower. It's actually possible to pass another cyclist this way. Additionally, it allows people to cycle next to one another and carry on a conversation, something we think is OK for every other mode of travel except bicycles (riding abreast rules).
The L Street cycletrack is how cycling infrastructure SHOULD BE, minus the having to mix w/ auto traffic part.

by thump on Mar 20, 2013 11:54 am • link • report

Back on topic: I heartily disagree w/ vehicular cyclists. I only share a road with drivers b/c I'm forced to. 10 mins into my ride this morning i once again became invisible, like the gorilla. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_gorilla

case of Intentional Blindness: Driver on cross street had stop sign, I didn't. Driver looked left directly at me-I was right there covered in hi-vis, moving and about to cross the intersection; driver looked right then -1 sec after looking right at me pulled out while I was in the middle of the intersection. Crash prevented b/c I yelled and he slammed on the brakes. I hate sharing the road with people like this who have intentional blindness.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 11:58 am • link • report

About Del Ray, you would think that citizens would be more concerned about the effects that the two gas stations, two car lots, Salvation Army building, and Kesterson Plumbing & Heating has on the walkability of Mt Vernon Ave than the opening of a Walgreens in a historic building. Staying on the same side of the road as the Walgreens proposal, you have to walk three blocks before reaching another storefront - where, on my last visit that I remember looking at, was 2/3 vacant.

by Thad on Mar 20, 2013 12:11 pm • link • report

Looks like theyve swallowed the "47%" thing.

Suggesting that the WPost focuses more on what should be provided for the little guy than what taxpayers should expect from its govt doesn't seem like an unreasonable point.

by HogWash on Mar 20, 2013 12:12 pm • link • report

"Suggesting that the WPost focuses more on what should be provided for the little guy than what taxpayers should expect from its govt doesn't seem like an unreasonable point"

given the establishment, deficit hawk, VSP approach of the WaPo editorials on fiscal policy, they hardly seem concerned about the little guy. And little guys are almost all taxpayers.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 12:20 pm • link • report

@Hogwash-aren't those the same people? "The little guy" who needs something and taxpayers who expect something? I see myself as both of those, i.e., I need and expect my trash to be picked up.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 12:21 pm • link • report

@Tina: I believe "looking out for the little guy" was a Examiner Editor Stephen G. Smith's euphemism for bleeding heart kind of stories -- articles about growing up poor written from the point of view of victim. The Post has a lot of these, while the Examiner was more about how government officials are screwing up.

by goldfish on Mar 20, 2013 12:37 pm • link • report

"Vehicular cyclists" aren't a monolithic group, and generally aren't opposed to *all* bicycle infrastructure -- John Allen, for instance, is a long-time supporter of bike lanes when they're built safely. The opposition to segregating cyclists on sidewalk cycle tracks is because these facilities are so dangerous -- experience in Copenhagen and D.C. show dramatic increases in the bike/car and bike/pedestrian accident rates, especially at intersections.

Take a look at the picture on that streetsblog story and ask yourself, "What if that white truck is about to make a right turn?"

Will the motorist see the cyclist on the sidewalk, behind the landscaping?

Will the motorist recognize the cyclist's speed, and yield before turning right?

Will the cyclist, "protected" mid-block by being on the sidewalk facility, recognize the hazard at the intersection and be prepared for a motorist who fails to yield?

Or will the motorist make a fast right turn and T-bone the cyclist in the intersection?

Real-world data from cycle track installations around the world show this design increases the intersection risk to the cyclist by several hundred percent. And intersections are already the most hazardous place for cyclists -- most car/bike accidents happen in or immediately adjacent to intersections.

Cycle tracks can be safe where they're built well, with separate signal phases for cyclists and an enforced ban on motorists turning right on red.

Where cycle tracks hide cyclists from motorists views, and provide no intersection control for cyclists, they're a reckless design choice that provides a *feeling* of safety while increasing the actual risk.

by Josh on Mar 20, 2013 12:50 pm • link • report

I chuckled at that "down the middle" line in the story on the Examiner. Down the middle of what? Their office?

Chinatown Walgreens! I almost can't believe something's finally opening at 7th and H. Delighted to have another 24-hour store in the area, since the Mass Ave CVS isn't exactly expansive and the one at 8th and E closes at 10 on the weekends.

by worthing on Mar 20, 2013 12:51 pm • link • report

thump,

Two people driving side-by-side in separate cars holding on a conversation would not be seen as acceptable. Of course, it's acceptable to talk to someone in the same vehicle as you, but that goes for bikes too.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 12:53 pm • link • report

@Josh-I don't want to share a path with pedestrians either. Its the even more dangerous (highest crash risk) than riding with drivers on the road.

Real-world data from cycle track installations around the world show this design increases the intersection risk to the cyclist by several hundred percent.

do you have an example of a valid study with this result? I'm unaware of any and I'd like to see it.

Ideally I want this: Cycle tracks can be safe where they're built well, (Who wants one badly built?) with separate signal phases for cyclists and an enforced ban on motorists turning right on red.

However, the above is, from my understanding, not at all what vehicular cyclists advocate for.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 1:00 pm • link • report

and josh by the same token most of us who do not subscribe to vehicular cycling, are not supportive of all choices of "segregated" facilities. Most of us avoid sidewalks except in unique circumstances, and generally disfavor side multiusepaths as a preferred option.

However many of us beleve there is strong evidence that even less than perfect cycle tracks and bike lanes have a superior safety record to riding without them, depending on the nature of the road.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 1:02 pm • link • report

"I don't want to share a path with pedestrians either. Its the even more dangerous (highest crash risk) than riding with drivers on the road."

The risk of crashes may be greater, but the physical danger of the crash is much less.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 1:04 pm • link • report

Since nobody else seems to have mentioned it: vehicular cycling does NOT mean always taking the full lane. I consider myself a vehicular cyclist, and I take the whole lane only when there is only one traffic lane in my direction, and it's too narrow for cars to pass me safely. Otherwise I ride just outside the door zone and generally try to make it easier for faster traffic -- cars, of course, but also some bikers -- to pass me. Live and let live.

by A Streeter on Mar 20, 2013 1:05 pm • link • report

@A Streeter -I do exactly what you describe above. However a "vehicular cyclist" is a philosophical point of view and not a biking behavior dictated by available infrastructure.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 1:19 pm • link • report

@onelasttime-I think you missed my point. We don't make passengers in motor vehicles ride directly behind the driver. We don't make people who ride buses or Metro sit behind their friends and talk over their shoulders to each other. They are free to do so, but generally two people try and sit next to each other in order to facilitate communication.
When I bike, I can't bike next to my friend or carry on a decent conversation anywhere else other than on L Street or a multi-use path (sometimes difficult even there w/ the high volumes on many in this area). Not being able to ride side-by-side w/ a friend and/or have a decent conversation with someone is a barrier to the casual cyclist. I don't think we'll see significant shifts to cycling until we embrace the sociable aspect of it. Designing wide enough facilities is part of that.

by thump on Mar 20, 2013 1:26 pm • link • report

I would think vehicular cyclists would cause more animosity based on my experience that they tend to slow the flow of traffic. I suppose it would depend on the location. As someone said above it would depend on the context as losing a parking lane might be more frustrating for city drivers used to slower traffic anyway.

by Alan B. on Mar 20, 2013 1:35 pm • link • report

thump,

I realize that was your point, and mine was that it's silly to detect "unfairness" stemming from differing amenities in different vehicles/ modes of transport. The analogy to motorists, is not a good one, because motorists (generally) do not have conversation outside of their own vehicle. Yes a car can accommodate more people than a typical bike, but we all knew that already. You speak as if society is actively trying to give drivers some luxury advantage over cyclists, but they're not - that luxury comes with the car.

I'm sure you could jury rig some heated enclosure for yourself on a bike, that doesn't mean you should be able to ride around with it because things are more fair that way.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 1:43 pm • link • report

John Allen, for instance, is a long-time supporter of bike lanes when they're built safely.

My impression of these guys is that they have a very specific vision of what particular kind of bike lanes and infrastructure they will accept, and they will oppose everything else. So their support is more in theory than in practice while they spend the rest of the time extolling the virtues of biking in the middle of the lane.

by JustMe on Mar 20, 2013 1:47 pm • link • report

i thought this was about the L street cycle track.

The point was that someone said the track is too wide. Fact is that wide cause of the treatment of turning motor vehicles. Many cyclists would prefer a narrower track to keep delivery vehicles - but at least a few like the wide track cause they can ride two abreast and converse, just as motorists can converse with a passenger, transit riders can converse, and peds can converse.

Seems like a reasonable point, though I guess the mass of folks commuting by bike alone would rather just not have the delivery vehicles in the lane.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 1:48 pm • link • report

@ Walker

My point was simply that "it's unfair that people in other forms of transportation can converse and I can't" should not be a consideration in implementing a bike lane.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 1:52 pm • link • report

@ Walker

My point was simply that "it's unfair that people in other forms of transportation can converse and I can't" should not be a consideration in implementing a bike lane.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 1:52 pm • link • report

Id say its a minor consideration, if not of zero value. I suspect enabling cyclists, who have different abilities and ride at different speeds, to pass each other safely, is a bigger advantage. Even then we probably wont get many wide tracks (except place like this where there is a vehicle turning issue), until we have a lot more cyclists.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 20, 2013 2:11 pm • link • report

"I suspect enabling cyclists, who have different abilities and ride at different speeds, to pass each other safely, is a bigger advantage."

If people are customarily riding side-by-side conversing this may be difficult.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 2:14 pm • link • report

If people are customarily riding side-by-side conversing this may be difficult.

Why are you harping on this? Has DDOT made it known that it will be making cycletracks wider so that people can converse? Clearly not - that was never a consideration nor does it seem it will be. One person simply pointed out that it was nice to converse.

by MLD on Mar 20, 2013 2:20 pm • link • report

How dare anyone imply that people on bicycles should be able to talk? That should be reserved for people driving potentially deadly vehicles at high speeds!

Sarcasm aside, I suspect conversation among bikers is relatively limited except among those traveling at slow speeds or with much greater than average lung capacity to the extent that it's really a nonissue. I would hope that people riding abreast would be aware enough to get out of the way for faster moving bikers just as groups of pedestrians should when taking up most of the sidewalk.

by Alan B. on Mar 20, 2013 2:57 pm • link • report

Re Montrose Parkway extension - the new roadway will cross the B&O tracks just few hundred feet north of the existing grade crossing on Randolph Road, and will re-join Randolph Road just west of Parklawn Drive.

I don't see how this is going to "frustrate creating a walkable, gridded neighborhood". There have been many fatal accidents at this grade crossing - it should have been removed decades ago.

Next, Forest Glen Road...

by Frank IBC on Mar 20, 2013 3:30 pm • link • report

@onelasttime - passing -If people are customarily riding side-by-side conversing this may be difficult.

Do you regularly ride? People on bikes communicate with one another all the time when passing each other. Things I say a lot: "I'm behind you and I want to pass", and "thank you" when someone overtaking me has warned me with a bell or by telling me.

Having room to move over for someone passing and to pass others is an important feature in a bicycle track.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 4:24 pm • link • report

Regarding "vehicular cyclists", here's a pretty interesting takedown of that philosophy:

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/CyclingEveryoneWTPP.pdf

Thanks to BeyondDC for tweeting it earlier.

by Froggie on Mar 20, 2013 4:46 pm • link • report

@Tina

What I'm envisioning is something like what happens on sidewalks with a group of people walking and talking slowly, blocking people trying to get by. Is that unfathomable with cyclists?

I agree that cyclists should have space to pass each other. I have considerable experience cycling (I don't have a car) but the city I've been transplanted to has virtually no bike lanes so I admit I'm not to keen on what goes on inside them.

by onelasttime on Mar 20, 2013 5:11 pm • link • report

blocking people trying to get by. Is that unfathomable with cyclists?

"Excuse me" works pretty well to get the attention of someone riding in front of you. So does a bell. It's really not a problem except in places where the bike lane is too narrow to pass/be passed safely.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 5:19 pm • link • report

@Froggie - thanks for that link

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 5:38 pm • link • report

Re: "Vehicular cyclists". I must be some sort of hybrid because I generally try to act like a vehicle in terms of stopping at red lights, lining up behind cars and not filtering up, because I want to stay predictable to other traffic for safety. However, I tend to try to allow cars to have enough room to pass and love bike lanes because I don't have to worry about an impatient driver behind me where I can't see them.

by I. Rex on Mar 20, 2013 5:45 pm • link • report

@ I. Rex - act like a vehicle in terms of stopping at red lights, lining up behind cars and not filtering up, because I want to stay predictable to other traffic for safety.

These are safety driven behaviors dictated by riding in the road. I do this too b/c I try not to be an idiot and I care about seeing tomorrow.

These behaviors are taught by vehicular cyclists (and others) and make sense for anyone riding in the road regardless of ideology.

The vehicular cyclists referenced in the blog post is an ideology that rejects the concept of special facilities for bikes, like bike lanes.

So I wouldn't say you're a hybrid. Neither am I. Riding in the road the most safe way is not really an ideology. Its more akin to washing your hands after riding the metro than to a set of beliefs that, if expressed (no bike lanes), would create a physical environment that conflicts with what other people want (bike lanes). Its a conflict within a group of people who all want to ride bikes. A minority of this group, vehicular cyclists, disdain bike lanes and other specialized biking facilities.

So even though it sounds like a description of best practices while riding in the road, "vehicular cyclist" is more than that. Its also an adherent of an ideology.

by Tina on Mar 20, 2013 7:49 pm • link • report

"morning links"? I always miss the most important meal of the day.

by Lucre on Mar 20, 2013 8:27 pm • link • report

John Allen posted his letter to the MassDOT in the streetsblog comment section. Read it before commenting negatively about his thought process and believing all that the author has written. Pointing out flaws in a design while offering what he sees as better solutions to the traffic issues is not opposing the project; it's giving input into the design of it.

Bike lanes in door zones aren't that great of a thing. Pushing cyclists to the side of the road when the current law allows us to use the whole lane as it is (there’s exceptions to this), might be seen as an improvement to some, but in reality it can be more dangerous. Instead of having an entire lane to ride in with the motor vehicles directly behind us, we are now being pushed to the side of the road, sharing what in many cases is a narrow lane with minimal clearances on either side. A properly designed bike lane is one that provides sufficient clearance from both the door zone and the motor vehicle traffic (in addition to many other things). If your bike lane is narrow, poorly maintained, and does not provide sufficient clearance from the door zone and the motor vehicle traffic, you have not improved your safety by riding in it.

That’s where vehicular cycling comes in to play. Not every destination will be connected by well designed, installed and maintained bicycle infrastructure. Nor do they need to be. Every cyclist ought to know how to ride safely as a vehicular cyclist because very few rides, if any, start and stop on quality bike infrastructure. Riding as if you’re traffic (because you are) is a necessary part of riding, and is not something that is to be avoided. It is something to be learned because it is inevitable. Even if every road in DC had a bike lane, you would still need to know how to ride as a vehicular cyclist, because eventually you’re going to have to turn left.

by UrbanEngineer on Mar 20, 2013 8:35 pm • link • report

"Two people driving side-by-side in separate cars holding on a conversation would not be seen as acceptable"

asking to borrow Grey Poupon is the obvious exception

by Kolohe on Mar 20, 2013 9:05 pm • link • report

@Frank IBC: take a look at the presentation (http://www.whiteflint.org/wpx/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WF-advisory-Group-presentation-Full.pdf), particularly pages 4 and 11. The project part shown in yellow does not look at all inviting for pedestrians or cyclists, imho.

by 7r3y3r on Mar 20, 2013 10:24 pm • link • report

@7r3y3r - The yellow part is the part that's basically done. I'm awfully tempted to say what they have now is less hostile to pedestrians/cyclists, but it does create a pretty wide dead zone to pass through. It's not any worse than what was there before in that regard either, but it limits how much it can get better.

All-in-all, though, the Montrose Parkway project seems to make a lot of sense to me. Realistically, you're going to have two roads with heavy traffic coming together somewhere in the area, and that seems like the best way to handle the interchange. They should be looking to increase density in both the White Flint and Twinbrook areas, and while there's decent public transit there (which, of course, can still be improved), that's simply going to result in more east-west traffic between I-270 and Veirs Mill Road. That means more traffic on Montrose Parkway and Randolph Road. Montrose traffic was pretty horrific before the Parkway was built, and Randolph traffic is pretty bad now when trains are rolling through. To support higher density in those two areas, I think they had to deal with the Montrose-355 interchange and the Randolph-CSX crossing. I'm not a huge fan of the way they did the interchange, but they must have had their reasons to do something that goofy. It looks like they are planning a SPUI at Parklawn- it seems like that would have been better than what they have now at 355.

On the Randolph issue, shutting down the CSX crossing there would be really disruptive for that area. It would really make it difficult to get from one side of the tracks to the other. It seems unnecessary to shut it down. Sure, its a dangerous crossing right now, but a lot of that is because of the very heavy traffic. Most of that traffic would be on the Parkway, instead of Randolph, so it seems like the safety issue would be greatly mitigated.

by Reggie14 on Mar 20, 2013 11:56 pm • link • report

Concerning the Montrose Parkway extension: I'm having trouble understanding the drawing of the Montrose Parkway—Parklawn Drive interchange shown on pages 17 and 18. It looks like a complex diamond interchange. Would Montrose Parkway run above Parklawn Drive? Would pedestrians be able to access and walk across that interchange?

7r3y3r, the segment in yellow on pages 4 and 11 has already been completed. It's pretty ugly for bikes and pedestrians, but at least there's a decent sidewalk on the east end of the segment along the bow-shaped entrance/exit of Rockville Pike.

by DAK4Blizzard on Mar 21, 2013 12:13 am • link • report

@ 7r3y3r -

Thanks. I didn't realize that the proposal to build the freeway dead-ending at Veirs Mill Road was still active. Interchange at Nebel Steet? That's insane.

Build the damned grade separation on Randolph and sell off the rest of the damned right-of-way.

by Frank IBC on Mar 21, 2013 12:24 am • link • report

Sorry, I meant Parklawn Drive, not Nebel Street.

by Frank IBC on Mar 21, 2013 12:25 am • link • report

I just want to briefly defend the idea of using terms that maybe not everyone knows without defining them. The internet is different than a newspaper. If you don't know that NASA means the National Air and Space Administration and you're reading the paper, then you're just left confused* but if you read it on the internet, you can look it up in an instant. When I used to write for the paper, we were told to imagine the article was being read by the least knowledgeable adult we know. The internet lets you challenge your readers a little more. If people are really curious, they can look it up and find as much information on it as they want. If they aren't then you haven't wasted the time of everyone who already knows what it means.

In other words, you can now assume that your readers know everything they can easily find on the internet, instead of assuming they know almost nothing.

*unless you can ask Siri or something

by David C on Mar 21, 2013 6:34 am • link • report

NASA is actually the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. :P

by selxic on Mar 21, 2013 7:46 am • link • report

"National Air and Space..." is the name of the museum.

by Frank IBC on Mar 21, 2013 8:43 am • link • report

My mistake. Fast typing before coffee.

by David C on Mar 21, 2013 8:45 am • link • report

@urban engineer - Every cyclist ought to know how to ride safely as a vehicular cyclist

No one disputes this.

I read allens response and found part of it reasonable but also found that he rejected the idea of a separated bicycle track fully w/o considering that the same safety/design features he recommends for the on the road bike lane can be incorporated into a a protected track, e.g. width and limited parking to provide sight lines at intersections and driveway cuts. I was surprised to see that someone id-ing himself as a VC-er accepted the idea of a bike lane at all. Apparently VC philosophy has evolved.

by Tina on Mar 21, 2013 12:04 pm • link • report

I think cyclists in general should know how to ride in traffic, how to make vehicular turns, how to take the lane, about the dangers of dooring and sidewalk riding and intersections. To that extent I guess I am a vehicular cyclist. But I do not have a high level comfort taking the lane for extended periods where I am much slower than other traffic (and for a variety of reasons I go more slowly than many cyclists), and I do not share the VC view of many categories of infrastructure. I believe VC is mistaken in a few instances on ranking different approaches (as shown in the study linked to earlier) and even more so overstates the relative danger of even the less desirable forms of segregated infrastructure. They also neglect the massive benefits of critical mass - the gain in driver awareness we get when there are more cyclists around, the improvement in driver behavior when more drivers ARE cyclists, and the improved voice cyclists have on policy when there are more cyclists.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2013 12:12 pm • link • report

@Frank IBC- An interchange at Parklawn makes sense. There's a fair amount of traffic going from 270 to the NIH/FDA facility on Parklawn. Right now it seems like a fair number of people go Montose -> E. Jefferson -> Rollins -> Twinbrook Parkway -> Parklawn. With the development slowly going on at Twinbrook, I think you'll see more traffic. And in the long run I think that will become a more commonly-used route to get between Twinbrook and White Flint.

Anyways, I sort of agree that the dead-end at Veirs Mill is a bit silly. I think the conspiracy theories regarding that might be right. Many of the people supporting that are probably hoping someday they can continue Montrose Parkway through the old right of way all the day to the ICC. It won't happen any time soon though, due to the state constitution amendment that was passed to block it. I understand the cost arguments against it, but it seems like the neighborhoods there shouldn't be too surprised at it. I mean, the reason there's a path there is because that land was set aside for a future road. In that sense it's not entirely unlike what we have with the Purple Line. right-of-way.

In any event, I'm not sure going all the way to Veirs Mill is worth it, but getting to Parklawn probably makes sense. The CSX tracks really separate the neighborhoods there. It's pretty tough to get from one side to the other.

by Reggie14 on Mar 21, 2013 12:30 pm • link • report

@AWITC -I agree.

by Tina on Mar 21, 2013 12:40 pm • link • report

OK, you've sold me on the interchange at Parklawn Drive. It's a shame that there wasn't one built at Executive Boulevard/Jefferson Street as well.

by Frank IBC on Mar 21, 2013 1:37 pm • link • report

Vehicular Cycling has never been the monolithic opposition to bicycle facilities that some make it out to be.

Similar to Portland, OR's discredited description of such cyclists as "strong and fearless," that's a strawman designed to discredit and marginalize experienced cyclists who object to facilities that increase accident risk to cyclists. And, just like the "strong and fearless" meme, it's often a clue that the proponents of a facility aren't really open to rational discourse about its design.

For example, consider the character assassination engaged in by Copenhagenize.com -- vehicular cyclists hit their children? Really? That's a rational argument about traffic safety?

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/vehicular-cyclists-secret-sect.html

by Josh on Mar 22, 2013 3:23 pm • link • report

"similar to Portland, OR's discredited description of such cyclists as "strong and fearless," that's a strawman designed to discredit and marginalize experienced cyclists who object to facilities that increase accident risk to cyclists. And, just like the "strong and fearless" meme, it's often a clue that the proponents of a facility aren't really open to rational discourse about its design."

i find the classification of cyclists by confidence and ability to be both realistic and useful. esp in making the case for why we need BOTH to accommodate those who can ride in high speed traffic with comfort, and those who prefer alternatives.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 22, 2013 3:31 pm • link • report

as for rhetoric, there is over the top rhetoric all around on this issue - I've seen enough of it from VC advocates. I read Copenhagenize for ideas about transforming cities to be more bike friendly, and increasing ridership

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 22, 2013 3:33 pm • link • report

Speaking of Walgreens...there is an empty retail space at the bottom of the 11th & G escalators at Metro Center and adjacent to the entrance to the Washington Center / Grand Hyatt that would be PERFECT for a convenience store or pharmacy, like the Duane Reade stores in Penn Station, for example. It'd be accessible to Metro riders as well as anyone at street level as it's *this side* of the faregates. Who do you have to sleep with around here to get it built? Besides Doug Jamal, that is...

by Dave on Mar 22, 2013 3:45 pm • link • report

Portland's "strong and fearless" category is a gross mischaracterization of why many cyclists ride in the traffic lane.

Personally, I'm to old and slow to ride in a door-zone bike lane.

When I was a testosterone-crazed teenager, sure, I felt like I could dodge opening car doors and loved zipping through the blind spots of trucks to get ahead in traffic.

After more than 30 years of bicycle commuting, I've seen too many accidents to be fearless in traffic. I'm justifiably afraid of riding close to parked cars. I'm not fast enough to dodge doors like I might have when I was young, and these days I break bones when I crash.

For Portland to dismiss such legitimate fears as "strong and fearless" is plainly an attempt to marginalize those who object to hazardous facilities.

Where safe segregated facilities are available, they're wonderful. Almost half of my commute is on a segregated path with limited intersections and good sight lines, and I love it.

But much of what's being pushed in the name of making cycling "comfortable" isn't making cycling *safe*. Cycletracks with uncontrolled street and driveway intersections are dangerous. Official studies in Copenhagen, D.C., and elsewhere show the hazards.

Bike boxes that encourage cyclists to pass through the blind spot of traffic that could be turning right aren't safe -- just look at the increased accident rate of bike boxes in Portland, to cite a recent example.

Vehicular cycling isn't about opposing bicycle facilities, it's about recognizing that cyclists aren't simply pedestrians on hobby-horses. Bicycles are vehicles, we have proven need for safe operating space, sight distances, turning radii, and traffic controls.

Activists who push for facilities that defy sound engineering principles and human nature are not doing me any favors.

If you want to build facilities that produce genuine increases in safety, great. But if you want to lure novice riders onto the street with "comfortable" facilities that put me at risk, no thanks.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/21/city-says-bike-lane-may-have-made-intersection-mor/

http://dcist.com/2013/02/ddot_releases_study_of_bike_and_ped.php

by Josh on Mar 22, 2013 6:30 pm • link • report