Public Spaces
Which K Street do you prefer?
DDOT is collecting comments on the proposed K Street Transitway until October 30th. The Environmental Assessment weighs three alternatives: 1) no change, 2) a two-lane center busway and 3 traffic lanes in each direction, and 3) a three-lane center busway with 2 traffic lanes and a bike lane in each direction. So far, business organizations are pushing option 2, while WABA supports a modified version of option 3.
Option 2 would run Circulator and local DC buses in a center busway. The bus shelters would be part of planted medians on each side. The outer roads would have three travel lanes, narrowing to two adjacent to the National Park Service properties, where K Street is narrower.
Commuter buses, which stop for longer periods of time than local buses, would use those outer roadways, stopping adjacent to the sidewalk. Delivery services like UPS and FedEx would probably stop here as well. Evenings and nights, the curb lane could be used for parking or valet operations.
Option 3 uses a three-lane busway, using the center lane as a passing lane around bus stops. In this option, the commuter buses would use the busway, as the various buses could pass each other. Widening the busway by one lane means taking away half a lane from each side road. The half lane becomes a bicycle lane. To allow for deliveries, Option 3 includes small lay-bys cut out of the sidewalk, narrowing it in a few places.
Traffic moves more slowly under Option 3. In the morning peak, simulations predict that cars would take 23.1 minutes to traverse the entire corridor heading east, compared to 12.6 minutes under Option 2. In the opposite direction and at other times of day, cars would likewise take somewhat longer, though sometimes the difference is slight.
Interestingly, Option 3 also moves slightly fewer people on buses than 2 WABA likes the dedicated bicycle infrastructure of Option 3. Option 2 forces cyclists to share the general-purpose roadway, where they would have to merge with fast-moving traffic and navigate around delivery trucks and buses. However, WABA thinks that trucks would probably just park in the bicycle lane anyway. Therefore, they are advocating for DDOT to raise the bike lane to the level of the sidewalk, as many cities do, especially in Europe. The bike lane would retain a different paving material and/or color to distinguish it from the regular sidewalk.
The Golden Triangle and Downtown BIDs, on the other hand, prefer Option 2. Both worry about loading; today, many trucks load from the side roadways on K Street. The restaurants also want to be able to use K Street for valet operations.
In their comments, the Downtown BID suggests supplementing Option 2 with one-way protected bicycle lanes on the adjacent one-way I and L Streets, similar to the 8th and 9th Avenue bike lanes in Manhattan. I suggested this when the initial plans came out as well. WABA's Eric Gilliland and many of you did point out that we ought to accommodate bicycles on every street, as many people going to and from destinations on K Street will need to ride there. Plus, there's no guarantee those other cycle tracks would happen, nor is there a grant proposal or funding currently on the table to build them. At the same time, one really good east-west bicycle route through downtown (and perhaps two good north-south ones) would make a huge difference in bicycle safety and ease.
Loading and valet parking is important to downtown businesses. However, there's also a strong argument that most loading should take place in alleys. The UPS and FedEx trucks could use the cut-outs, while more substantial loading should use the loading docks which zoning requires all buildings to have. Many property owners successfully petitioned the DC Government in the past to close parts of the alleys to maximize development. For them now to say that they need K Street for loading seems a bit hypocritical. DDOT has cracked down on alley closings for this reason.
Businesses ought to also be able to do some loading on the side streets. Streets like 19th, even during the morning rush, often have two of the three lanes blocked for illegal loading on both sides of the street. If the curb lanes are going to be blocked by a few trucks anyway, more trucks doesn't make the traffic any worse.
Restaurants could operate their valet parking using the cut-outs or on side streets as well. Many businesses would love to have valet operations right in front, but that's not a right, nor is it really necessary. On blocks with many restaurants, they can share valet space. DDOT now requires permits for valet areas, and is making many businesses move their valet space to provide adequate distance from the curb, ensure that valet operations don't block streets, and otherwise regulate this.
Plus, if we build the protected bike lanes on L and I, businesses will probably raise similar objections to losing potential loading (legal or illegal) and valet space. We have to determine where curb space is better used for bicycles, transit, loading, and other uses. New York City has no alleys at all, and managed to put in protected bike lanes and even close much of Broadway.
Based on the higher travel times and lower throughput of Option 3, it's unclear if the added benefits outweigh the costs in this case. By putting some buses in the transitway and some in the general purpose lanes, we retain more operational flexibility. And off-peak, a third busway lane would get almost no use, making a full lane of the roadway almost completely idle outside rush periods. If DC puts streetcars down K Street in the future, it may make sense to move some buses out of the transitway to avoid getting stuck behind the slower-accelerating but larger streetcars.
It's a tough decision. Many DDOT officials I've spoken to seem honestly unsure which option to pick. I urged the Dupont Circle ANC not to take a firm stand; after looking carefully at the data, I'm still unsure, but lean toward Option 2 as long as I and L Street protected bike lanes are a real possibility.
What do you think? Post your opinions in the comments and submit them directly to DDOT. In this case, I suspect that rather than going through the motions of an EA with an end goal in mind, DDOT really would like to hear from more people who use K Street in a wider range of ways. Help them out and send in your comments.
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
In option 3 would there be any street parking? While the area is full of offices there are still businesses that individuals need to run into for short meetings (I'm thinking Charles Schwab for example). I know there are a number of garages in the area, but people will still want to park on the street or at least put on their flashers as they run in. Will there be room for this outside of the curb-cuts?
DC USA has these curb-cuts for loading/unloading only, but it doesn't stop people from parking in them when they go shopping. I've even gone by one car that put up the heat deflector boards on the dash. I would assume the similar issues would arise on K St. if a 'parking lane' is not provided.
Would either of these options allow for street-cars in the future if DC eventually figured out the wire issue? There's less of a need here, but if the city is looking to expand them long-term would that still be a viable option?
by Rob on Oct 22, 2009 10:47 am • link • report
Bike facilities take the least amount of space and are probably the least expensive out of all the modes. Why do they always have to be the first thing to go? By including them, we will be increasing bike mode share and that will make up for the loss of any car lane in the long term.
by terkel on Oct 22, 2009 10:58 am • link • report
The Dupont ANC agreed with you and - rather than endorse a single choice - we weighed in with what we liked about Options 2 and 3, and what our concerns were with each one.
We strongly support bike lanes on adjacent one-way streets, and we worry about the racial and economic implications of constricting east-west traffic in midtown. The closure of east-west streets in front of and behind the White House made it more difficult for people who live in the eastern part of the city to drive to jobs in the West End and other areas west of the White House. We have a growing east-west jobs divide, and have to be very careful we don't make it ever harder for those people to drive to their jobs. (Many car pool, and others drop off kids at Francis-Stevens School before work and pick them up after work. Mass transit is not a practical option for many of them.)
We are also concerned - as is the previous poster Rob - how the options will work in the real world where people briefly disregard the law and park for short periods of time.
The reality of K Street is that few of these buildings have a single tenant, so deliveries cannot be easily scheduled for a building with 20 or 30 associations, law firms, and other tenants all needing to be served and supplied. How will that reality affect the safety and viability of bicycle lanes, if they're often blocked?
We strongly support the bus lanes, and agree that "no build" is a bad idea and that Options 2 and 3 are both big improvements over the status quo. But, like you, we have doubts about aspects of both 2 and 3 - and not only could we not reach a consensus...most of us saw strong advantages and disadvantages to both of the alternatives.
by Mike Silverstein on Oct 22, 2009 11:15 am • link • report
I agree that not allowing buses to pass each other will result in bunching and having lines of buses queuing up to service a platform.
But even with the passing lanes, many buses need to make those stops anyway so they can't<\i> pass the bus in front of it.
I guess a lean towards option 3 since it has bike lanes and simply because it dedicates more asphalt to transit.
by Reid on Oct 22, 2009 11:16 am • link • report
by Reid on Oct 22, 2009 11:18 am • link • report
To give some perspective on the figure that it would take 23.1 minutes to traverse the corridor eastbound by car in the AM peak under Alternative 3 in the design year (2030): currently, that takes 9.2 minutes. The 2030 estimate is 12.3 mins with no-build and 12.6 mins under Alternative 2. Basically, Alt 3 would turn the corridor into a tremendous parking lot. And if I read Figure 8 correctly, Alternative 3 would move buses at about the same speed as Alternative 2 (slightly slower in the morning and slightly faster in the afternoon), despte including the passing lane.
by Josh B on Oct 22, 2009 11:20 am • link • report
Too busy to look into it myself but what happens to these configurations in a streetcar situation?
by Boots on Oct 22, 2009 11:27 am • link • report
by tom veil on Oct 22, 2009 11:28 am • link • report
by wd on Oct 22, 2009 11:33 am • link • report
Ummm...yeah, kind of like how the extra lanes for regular traffic (in option 2) would get almost no use outside rush periods. That's pretty much how peak/off peak usage works.
I really don't understand how they figure that Option 3 would actually move fewer bus riders than Option 2. It makes absolutely no sense. The real difference between 2 and 3 (on the transit side, at least) is that in Option 3, commuter buses - i.e. non-WMATA buses - would be able to use the transitway. So in Option 2, keep in mind that during peak periods, the curbside lanes will be full of commuter buses. I would rather keep buses and cars from interacting and have commuter and local buses use the bus lanes.
As for the bike lanes, it makes far more sense to me to put bike lanes in on neighboring one way streets. They have less auto traffic and fewer turning movements to deal with.
by nevermindtheend on Oct 22, 2009 11:50 am • link • report
From a bikers perspective, I don't think I'd want to ride on K street at all. Even before reading the post, I looked at the images and immediately thought "why not put the bikes on I and L, and the buses on K?" That seems like the safest option to me.
As a pedestrian, why not eliminate the bike lanes from 3 (by moving them to I and L) and instead have a wider sidewalk with tree planting areas large enough to support mature trees, and "mini plazas" for kiosks, cafes, buskers, and other vibrant city life. Why is the pedestrian completely ignored in these schemes?
by Larchie on Oct 22, 2009 11:51 am • link • report
by Mike on Oct 22, 2009 11:56 am • link • report
This isn't right. The outermost peak-period travel lane in Option 2 would be used for parking in off-peak periods.
by Josh B on Oct 22, 2009 11:59 am • link • report
by ah on Oct 22, 2009 12:10 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Oct 22, 2009 12:11 pm • link • report
I'm similarly confused by the reduction in bus movement with Option 3. I get that city buses may not move faster but how could the Commuter buses not move faster in the busway with the ability to pass than in the travel lanes? Curious.
I bike on K now. It's not great, but doable. I'm uncomfortable declaring roads as unfit for cyclists.
by David C on Oct 22, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report
by nevermindtheend on Oct 22, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report
I support option 3, for the reasons others have given. Option 2 will be bad for riders of commuter buses and a nightmare for cyclists. If, as some say, it will be impossible to stop trucks from blocking a lane, and in option 2 commuter buses will stop there, then cyclists will constantly have to cut in and out of car, bus and truck traffic.
The lack of a commitment or funding for the imagine parallel street bike facilities is a HUGE issue, not something to quickly mention and then go on back to option 2.
Also, in these counts of how many people can be moved, and how long it takes to get form one place to another, why is there no mention of how many cyclists can be accommodated or low long it takes them to get anywhere? Clearly, making K street (even more) dangerous for cyclists reduces the number of people moved by bike. Sending cyclists to parallel streets increases the time it takes them to get places.
by j on Oct 22, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report
by Allan on Oct 22, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report
by Mike on Oct 22, 2009 12:36 pm • link • report
And no on the cut-outs. That's just sidewalk nibbling.
by цarьchitect on Oct 22, 2009 12:38 pm • link • report
But K Street's still all cracked and broken...
by цarьchitect on Oct 22, 2009 12:47 pm • link • report
Even if one buys the notion that option 3 would move cars more slowly, I think that's a tolerable cost if it means moving buses more quickly and letting cyclists and pedestrians move more safely.
That safety is another benefit of option 3: Currently, as a pedestrian, I feel I'm taking your life in my hands just crossing the street anywhere near Farragut Square. A lot of that is due to buses turning corners, and a lot is due to drivers running red lights.
As to restricting east-west access: Keep in mind that Constitution also runs east-west (connecting with Maryland Ave in NE) and is a far more efficient route to I-66 than K St. And besides, if you're going anywhere west of Falls Church, you're better off taking 495 to 66.
Finally, even the most gung-ho driver knows it's already an exercise in frustration to drive down K during business hours. This would not make it much worse.
by JB on Oct 22, 2009 12:49 pm • link • report
by JB on Oct 22, 2009 12:53 pm • link • report
by Chris Loos on Oct 22, 2009 12:57 pm • link • report
I think the city needs to think about its loading rules. For instance, you can forbid loading and unloading during rush hour. Put large fines on it, and if a company is caught more than three times (a month/year/whatever), they get banned from the city.
More and more European cities have such rules. They are very unpopular with merchants, but the general population tends to like them.
Amsterdam has experimented with cargotrams. Trucks deliver the pellets at some warehouse where they get systematically organized, trams pick up the pellets and drop them of.
The advantage is that goods can be delivered in larger truck to the city's edges where they are transferred to cargotrams. From the cargotrams the goods get transferred to smaller electric cars.
The advantages are saved costs for truckers who never get stuck in traffic anymore. Merchants get their good on schedule - an advantage for them. Less trucks also means less congestion, and that means less smog - a big issue in Europe.
Here's the propaganda movie in English (euro-English, brrrr):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op7rF7DeXt4&NR=1
Amsterdam didn't continue the experiment, but Dresden, Germany apparently has them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLJ6XAriKXg
So does Zurich, Switzerland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLBhpEL8IqY
by Jasper on Oct 22, 2009 1:09 pm • link • report
by ah on Oct 22, 2009 1:30 pm • link • report
The busway is ideal because it speeds up those lines' arrivals and departures from the area and improves circulation.
Take a look at the overall system bus map and you'll see what I'm getting at. How many buses travel the length of the K corridor?
by Michael Perkins on Oct 22, 2009 1:39 pm • link • report
More or less.
by BeyondDC on Oct 22, 2009 1:54 pm • link • report
http://dc.thecityfix.com/tiger-grants-nt-a-transit-panacea/
There were $57 billion worth of requests nationwide for $1.5 billion worth of TIGER money. Hopefully TIGER will be expanded heavily with the new transportation bill.
by David Daddio on Oct 22, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report
by Jacob on Oct 22, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report
Most of these lines only travel a couple of blocks on K street and are therefore going to be helped by a busway but not by a streetcar (until their service is somehow improved to streetcar)
by Michael Perkins on Oct 22, 2009 2:10 pm • link • report
I have nothing against the love some people have of streetcars but commuter buses should really be considered first. Streetcars may replace city buses but they can not replace transportation from your home in the suburbs to the front door of your office. And let's face it, the majority of those who work in the K Street area don't live in the city so speeding up suburban commuting would help the largest amount of people.
I also like someone's suggestion of shifting the bike lanes to parallel streets and widening the sidewalks instead. Bike lanes on busy streets are constantly blocked by trucks and cars anyway so it would be better to give that space to pedestrians and shops.
by Pat on Oct 22, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report
this is K Street we're talking about, folks -- cyclists need to be able to get around the city, in safety, with dignity, on the most direct routes, always. if there is room for cars after we've provided the 'minimally required infrastructure' for pedestrians and bikers, then we can allow cars to travel on K St., too, else they can go around to the adjacent one-way streets, not bikes. we should not be going so far out of our way to accommodate cars at the expense of bicycles. it's a bit shocking that anyone here would suggest otherwise.
for the record, i've been cruising around bike-friendly SF the past few days, and the one-way streets, for bikers, are an absolute nightmare. our downtown is a series of highways, when i get tired of going 'one long block over' several times a day, i end up riding on the sidewalk, terrorizing pedestrians, creating a danger to them, myself, and even drivers - because i get pushed off the curb and end up salmoning up the wrong way on a one way street/highway. it's an absolute disaster. take out the one-ways, and don't throw bikers to the dogs. stick to your guns, be brave, fight for what's right -- everyone who believes in livable cities needs to stick together against our common enemy -- the automobile.
and, finally, as pointed out in the post, do not buy promises of 'required infrastructure'. don't fall for that stuff. get it in writing, signed off, as part of the project -- nothing less.
by Peter Smith on Oct 22, 2009 2:22 pm • link • report
What's your point? It's not like building the streetcar would preclude buses operating simultaneously. Indeed, Arlington's Columbia Pike plan specifically includes both.
by BeyondDC on Oct 22, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Oct 22, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report
Though, if streetcar tracks go in, that's a rut to get a bike wheel stuck in.
by Lucre on Oct 22, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-north-leg-west-k-street-tunnel.html
by Douglas Willinger on Oct 22, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report
Will that traffic actually be slower, now that the buses (which stop frequently) -- and maybe the bikes -- are out of the way?
by Gavin Baker on Oct 22, 2009 2:47 pm • link • report
Are streetcars a viable mode option for Georgia Avenue or 16th Street? They're too narrow to provide a dedicated ROW for streetcars, and it's hard to see the advantage of streetcars in mixed traffic over the current bus infrastructure, which as you note is already widely used.
That's not to say we should run a streetcar down K, but it seems to me money would be better spent on BRT-style improvements on Georgia and 16th (priority signalling, dedicated bus lanes where feasible, fare payment before boarding, etc.)
by Josh B on Oct 22, 2009 2:51 pm • link • report
Why do people think that buses can't pass each other on a two-lane road? I don't get it. As long as the stops are not directly across the street from each other, the express bus can easily weave around the local bus. Later on, streetcars won't need passing lanes either. Besides, the amount of time saved for bus passengers by the passing lane is outweighed by the doubling of time it will take cars to move down the corridor.
Losing two car/truck traffic lanes will just cause gridlock and slow EVERYTHING down. Trucks and cabs will still be stopping by the curb all the time, reducing traffic to ONE lane. As was pointed out, DC needs much better East-West car traffic movement.
As for bike lanes, here are two ideas to add to the good idea of I&L lanes:
1. Put a two-way bike path on one of the sidewalks near the curb
2. Paint the curb lanes red with bicycle logos on them and keep that lane on the off-peak side of the road off-limits to cars. Make that your two-way bike path. This way you still always have three car lanes in the rush-hour direction, but you also have got somewhere for bikes to move unfettered. Best of both worlds.
The point is, there are options and ways to move bikes down the street. Mid summer and dead-winter is too hellish in DC for most bike riders anyway. As others have noted, bikes are still going to move fewer people than buses, streetcars, cars, or even pedestrian sidewalks and WABA alone should not dictate the plans.
by Dude on Oct 22, 2009 2:53 pm • link • report
If this gets built, you MUST put in streetcar tracks. MUST. Few public rights of way are in position now to have dedicated transit space like this. The additional cost of adding tracks, even if service is a ways off, is peanuts.
Put it this way - the investment probably makes sense only for the streetcar. It also probably makes sense only for the busway. Put them together, and it makes a ton of sense. Likewise, you want to build it all at once.
You can add wires and whatnot later, without disrupting the pavement. Can't do that with tracks.
Basically, you're presenting a false choice. Upgrading 16th St or GA Ave isn't on the table, and if they were - they wouldn't be remotely as cheap as this combined bus/streetcar transitway.
by Alex B. on Oct 22, 2009 3:06 pm • link • report
we know auto traffic dissipates when we stop making it so easy for cars to dominate any particular street/area/route/city. people choose other means to get around. if we provide the necessary infrastructure, many will choose to get around by bike. if we try to concoct some wacky scheme to put bike logos everywhere, in some marketing game, but not actually provide the necessary infrastructure, we won't have people biking -- it's as simple as that.
The point is, there are options and ways to move bikes down the street.
Just as there are options to move cars and trucks and buses. But as you stated yourself, if you choose a bad option, a crappy street/city results. We don't want that. We want to be the happiest people on earth, not the most miserable. Build the necessary bike infrastructure.
Mid summer and dead-winter is too hellish in DC for most bike riders anyway.
Nonsense. Fall is lovely, and yet so few people ride -- why? Is it because of the beautiful fall foliage? Or the wonderful crisp, clean, cool, autumn air? Or the beautiful sights and sounds? Which one?
As others have noted, bikes are still going to move fewer people than buses, streetcars, cars, or even pedestrian sidewalks and WABA alone should not dictate the plans.
yes, others have noted -- incorrectly. lots of people say lots of things -- that doesn't make what they say true. i'm open to data -- show me some data and we'll talk.
mode shares (how many people move around by walking, biking, busing, etc.) are dictated by various things -- one being the available infrastructure. if you have walkable streets, people will walk. if you have bikeable streets, people will bike. etc. it's not rocket science. just because something exists today doesn't mean it should exist tomorrow. just because something does not exist today does not mean it should not exist tomorrow. Nowhere is it written in stone that we have to be satisfied with a city whose mean street regularly terrorize those who choose to cycle. instead, we can stop the terror, and actually welcome cyclists to the streets. now wouldn't that be something?
just because DC is car-dominated today doesn't mean it should be car-dominated tomorrow. slavery once existed in the US, but we got rid of it. slavery to the car exists in the US right now, but we're slowly stamping it out. and rightfully so.
being able to move around under one's own power is a human right -- nobody should be dependent on motorized transport to get themselves to the doctor, to school, to their job, to pick up their kids, etc. and that includes buses and trains and ferries and whatever other type of motorized transport you can think of. walking, biking, and other means of human-powered transport should be protected under law. complete streets should be law. in some enlightened places, it has already happened, and more and more places in America are catching up every day.
The Livable Streets Transportation Hierarchy is clear -- walking, then biking, and then transit -- in that order.
by Peter Smith on Oct 22, 2009 3:23 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on Oct 22, 2009 3:37 pm • link • report
by J on Oct 22, 2009 4:37 pm • link • report
Lanes can and should be 10 feet wide (perhaps a wee bit wider for the bus lanes). In Boston, one street is actually being striped at 9.5.
Remove 1.5 feet per lane, and suddenly, 9 feet are available.....perfect for 2 bike lanes!
by J on Oct 22, 2009 4:46 pm • link • report
There are many many more buses in Seoul, and many many more bus riders (even percentage-wise), but I think that's due to their city being properly adapted to public transit. From what I've seen, it DOES cause some issues with the bus lanes ending because of the merge.
by Chris on Oct 22, 2009 5:00 pm • link • report
Oh - and why again should any planning effort be spent making it easy drive to work in THE MOST TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE PART OF THE ENTIRE METRO AREA? Shouldn't this be the most walkable, most bikeable, least car-congested space in the city? Option 3 at least has this priority straight.
by egk7 on Oct 22, 2009 5:09 pm • link • report
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/mobilien/
by David C on Oct 22, 2009 5:11 pm • link • report
How about a 2 1/2 lane design that reserves space for deliveries, like this?
by Squalish on Oct 22, 2009 5:31 pm • link • report
of course not. that's the whole point of having the appropriate/necessary infrastructure. if it doesn't look welcoming to would-be bikers, then it is probably not welcoming to would-be bikers. the answer, then, is not to keep moving 'one block over' until we find some street somewhere in the city where we might actually feel somewhat safe for a few seconds, but to demand the city build the required infrastructure -- and build it on every single street in the city, especially the major transit arteries which actually require special treatment more. neighborhood streets can be turned into woonerfs (low speed streets where pedestrians and bikers are protected by law).
Even before reading the post, I looked at the images and immediately thought "why not put the bikes on I and L, and the buses on K?" That seems like the safest option to me.
The safest option is to remove private automobiles from K Street. Other than that, there's no reason to believe that K Street can't be made safe and comfortable for bikers. Why not? I would argue that a decent society would deem walking and biking and other forms of human-powered transport to be the most desirable forms of transport, and as such, would guarantee their rights to the streets, especially the major streets, first.
I vote for option 3--and I'm not even a bike commuter. But I think more people should have the option of *safetly* commuting to K Street via bike, without worrying about getting killed by a car or bus.
Now this is what I'm talking about. Right on! Let's stick together, against the car people. And we also know that adding bike lanes to a street makes it safer not just for bikers, but for pedestrians and drivers as well. Talk about a win-win-win. I would only add that we should all support WABA's modified option 3) -- which raises the bike lanes to be grade-separated (raised a few inches, like a little curb) and painted, so as to keep lawbreaking drivers in check as much as possible.
That safety is another benefit of option 3: Currently, as a pedestrian, I feel I'm taking your life in my hands just crossing the street anywhere near Farragut Square. A lot of that is due to buses turning corners, and a lot is due to drivers running red lights.
amen. i'll say it again, if you want a decent city, then walkers, bikers, and transit-takers need to unite against law-breaking automobiles that endanger us all and massively degrade the quality of life in the city.
Nearly doubling the travel time for cars and reducing the bus throughput solely to improve conditions for bikers who would only be slightly inconvenienced by using dedicated bike lanes on I and L is insane.
spoken by a true non-biker. extending voting rights to African-Americans and women greatly inconvenienced a lot of rich, white men who were used to getting their way, but as a society we decided it was time to make things right, or at least a little less wrong. and thank goodness we did. let's make things right on K Street, or at least a little bit less wrong, and give pedestrians and cyclists the opportunity to commute K Street in safety and comfort, without fear.
i agree that 'transit-friendly' streets should, by definition, be more friendly to walkers and bikers than to cars. crazy concept.
as far as allowing bikers to use the bus lanes -- sure -- why not. they do it in Paris, yes. but it looks crazy. because it is crazy. we do the same here in SF. nobody knows if it's legal or not to ride one's bike in the bus lane, but we don't care -- we just do it to feel somewhat safer than being out there with the pit bull cars, snarling and nipping at our back wheels. still, having a bus come up behind you is incredibly intimidating, even for experienced cyclists. if you want to allow bikers to travel with dignity, without fear of losing their lives every other minute, without gargantuan, articulated buses clipping at their back wheels, then this 'let all the bikers bike in the bus lanes' idea is not a good idea -- mainly because there won't be any bikers in the bus lanes. Only the most hard-core cyclist will do it (predominantly young males) -- everyone else is out of luck. If you want to be serious about having a decent, livable city, then you need the required infrastructure -- for walkers, bikers, etc. -- in that order. Cars come last. Sorry.
The rule of thumb for required biking infrastructure is 8-to-80 -- 8 years old to 80 years old. If you'd be happy to have your 8 year-old daughter or 80 year-old grandfather ride in the bus lanes in front of gargantuan buses where they could slip on wet pavement and get run over by 80 tons, or accidentally fade into the other lane and face that 80 tons head-on, then yes, advocate for forcing bikers into the bus lanes.
by Peter Smith on Oct 22, 2009 5:34 pm • link • report
I think its better to have bike lanes that can be used for trucks, but only during non rush hour times.
by Matt R on Oct 22, 2009 5:46 pm • link • report
Wouldn't the third busway lane be used by taxis offpeak? Not exactly unused.
Doesn't regular traffic impede commuter buses in Option 2? DRPT thinks express buses from Arlington to K Street are the way to go to relieve the Orange crush, and I can't see how express buses from Ballston or beyond are going to compete for riders unless the bus can beat cars and Metrorail timewise. Does Option 2 really allow for this?
by James M on Oct 22, 2009 6:04 pm • link • report
The 17 feet is a pair of lanes for buses (public and private) and deliveries in the normal course of business - with stopping space on the left side at a curb; Additionally, it is intended to be unrestricted pavement, allowing accommodation of whatever is necessary other than daily through car traffic - including passing of vehicles stopping in the wrong place, emergency vehicles, bike lane overflow, a parade crowd, a temporary bypass for police to direct people into during an accident investigation or roadwork... whatever. Having it at the edge of the traffic space, rather than separated by planters or fences, also allows buses to bypass obstacles in the bus lane and merge back and forth as needed. The only rule is that cars aren't allowed to use it from one intersection to the next.
Offering up that 16' of extra walkable width frees one up to plant some trees at the edge of the current sidewalk area without bottlenecking pedestrian flow.
by Squalish on Oct 22, 2009 6:45 pm • link • report
3' bike lane (sidewalk-level)
2.5' extra sidewalk (sidewalk-level)
8' sidewalked streetcar track (sidewalk-level)
2.5' extra sidewalk (sidewalk-level)
17.5' uncontrolled non-car space, allowing stopping/turning for both buses and delivery on in one lane and travel in the other. Also serves auxilliary shoulder purposes. (street-level)
8' car lane (street-level)
8' car lane (street-level)
11' bidirectional turn lane (street-level)
8' car lane (street-level)
8' car lane (street-level)
17.5' uncontrolled non-car space, allowing stopping/turning for both buses and delivery on in one lane and travel in the other. Also serves auxilliary shoulder purposes. (street-level)
2.5' extra sidewalk (sidewalk-level)
8' sidewalked streetcar track (sidewalk-level)
2.5' extra sidewalk (sidewalk-level)
3' bike lane (sidewalk-level)
There is space in the 2.5' width to erect covered station canopies for charging streetcars, if that's what is required. In the meantime, before we figure out the streetcars, it's sidewalk space.
by Squalish on Oct 22, 2009 7:01 pm • link • report
I was about to dismiss you as some crazy guy, but when I finished reading the sentence I changed it to *awesome* crazy guy.
@Gavin Baker-
I'm personally a big fan of median alignments rather than side or curb alignments. Most transit riders have to cross the street at some point, anyway -- if they ride in on one direction, they'll often ride out on the other direction: necessitating crossing the full width of the street. A center alignment means you only have to cross half the street, which are monodirectional lanes, and each crossing can be independently controlled by pedestrian signals -- hence they can more precisely reflect whether or not that crossing has any conflicts at that time.
@J-
By and large I support narrowed lanes in urban areas, but do keep in mind that the newer WMATA buses are very wide. Offhand, I seem to think they're ~10' before even counting the mirrors.
-----
I'll admit that I drive K Street at best once or twice per year, though I walk along it at least a couple times more than that. So my thoughts are really based on the plans and less-so on currently practice. I really like how Larchie approached it, so I'll take the same route (and likely echo much of what has already been said)...
As a ped:
I prefer Option 3, as I'd have to cross only two lanes at a time rather than three. However, what's more critical to me is that each segment of the crossing is controlled independently (as per my comments to Gavin, above).
As a biker:
Again, Option 3 appears to be my choice, as it doesn't appear that Option 2 has any bike lanes. However, I've been to a number of cities whereby bicyclists are permitted to use the bus lanes. Usually bus traffic is comparatively light such that cyclists can pass buses by shifting into the opposing lane. Hence, Option 2 could still fit the bill; as would Option 3. It appears that stops are close enough such that it would be bikes passing buses -- not a need for buses to pass bikes.
I agree with WABA's cycle track proposal for Option 3, but consider whether they want cycle tracks without on-street bike lanes or if WABA wants both (as per their comments on the Takoma/Langley Sector Plan). However, one must always remain mindful of transition points, both at each end of the project as well as at each intersection -- how do bikes transition at the project limits to/from bike amenities outside the project limits; are bikes treated as peds or vehicles at intersections?
As a driver:
Option 2 provides room for on-street parking, which should (of course) be geared for high-turnaround movement... Shoupists unite for performance pricing on that one. The faster travel times are another plus, likely a direct result of the additional lane & subsequent increase in processing capacity at the signals. However, I've never driven through here during peaks... so my experience driving along K St is of an uncongested, free-moving roadway as-is... can't say my driver's sentiment is too strong when I'm so close to a Metro station.
As a bus rider:
Bus sidings might be handy if there were express routes (which might include commuter buses), but I'm a bit skeptical of their benefit over a short segment with regards to local bus operations. Would local buses catching up for lost time skip those stops? If not, wouldn't they have to stop there, anyway? As for commuter buses: what's the frequency of such buses? I'm not quite sure the cost/benefit is there to justify that additional lane unless commuter or express buses are rolling through every couple of minutes.
Overall:
Overall, I'd like to see two travel lanes w/ a third lane provided for on-street performance-priced parking. Bulb-outs would shorten pedestrian crossings, and each segment of each pedestrian crossing would have its own set of pedestrian signals heads. Bikes would be permitted to use the transitway. What's most important of everything, however, is that there be dedicated parking spaces for Fojol at the Metro station.
by Bossi on Oct 22, 2009 7:54 pm • link • report
Great idea. It'll save us the trouble of building a wall to keep all those annoying black folks who live in the eastern part of the city from their jobs at GW Hospital, GW, Georgetown, the World Bank and wherever. We've already shut down Pennsylvania Avenue, and E Street. If we shut down any more east-west routes, we'll be able to safely bicycle around in a sea of happy white faces. "The happiest (white) people on earth."
by Incredulous on Oct 22, 2009 7:56 pm • link • report
Also,
North Haverbrook Monorail - Never Forget
by Squalish on Oct 22, 2009 8:31 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Oct 22, 2009 8:39 pm • link • report
by Chuck Coleman on Oct 22, 2009 9:33 pm • link • report
Yes, because traffic planning in the main business district of DC should be planned around a a small subset of 20 somethings who don't have jobs where they need to wear suits or skirts.
The main priority should be on public transportation/pedestrian. Always.
by DCDC on Oct 23, 2009 2:10 pm • link • report
by David C on Oct 23, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report
by Turnip on Oct 23, 2009 10:12 pm • link • report
by bill on Oct 30, 2009 5:40 pm • link • report
None of these plans are getting rid of cars. What we're lacking is safe and efficient transit and bike infrastructure. K Street is a vital route of travel for every mode, and it's wide enough that it can (and should) serve every mode. Either way, especially if commuter buses can use the busway, more cars will be able to move along K no matter what. Good news for everyone.
I vote for Option #3.
by LB on Oct 30, 2009 7:33 pm • link • report
Add a Comment