What we really need is an M St bike lane in Northwest, from Georgetown to Farragut.

by Andrew on Dec 1, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report

FYI: The "analysis that was presented to the BID" link is broken.

by Stephen Miller on Dec 1, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report

The DC DOT is far too timid about installing bike tracks where they are really needed. Yes- I agree- a bike track on M street NW is an excellent idea.Every street in downtown DC- where it is prohibited to cycle on the sidewalks- should have dedicated separated biketracks. DC has ample space wide streets and wide sidewalks- where an auto protected track could be built. We are not Philadelphia or NYC- and yet both of these cities are actively planning just this kind of bicycle track- even with their tinier street widths when compared to DC. To me- it is reluctance and lack of will by the DC DOT- which has very deliberately veered away from putting new bikeways ont he most heavily bicycled streets and makes incomplete bikeways that start and stop almost at random.

They are not doing a very good job.
IMO they are terrified of a potential suburban congressional uproar / backlash that could jeapordize or bring criticism of any new bike ways that are too obvoius. So they build them in out of the way places. Or they do half- assed measures. Id rather just bicycle on the sidewalks than use some of these dangerous "please door -me" bicycle lanes that put one in direct proximity to fast moving, cell phone brandishing , northern Virginia soccer moms in SUVs heel bent on capping me.

by w on Dec 1, 2009 4:08 pm • link • report

No, DDOT, what DC needs is a dedicated bike lane from Georgetown to Chinatown. You are building dedicated infrastructure hoping people will use it, instead of building dedicated infrastructure where people clearly need it.

These are the types of projects that anti bike planners can and will point to once there is a major traffic jam or other parking "catastrophe" in this area.

+1, w: the city is half assing in order to avoid ruffling feathers at the expense of its own citizens and taxpayers.

Have some balls, Gabe: build a real cycle track in an area of the city that desparately needs it

by JTS on Dec 1, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report

Feasibility study:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/pdf-view.cfm?filename=bikelanes-091016-proposaltobid.pdf

by JD on Dec 1, 2009 4:33 pm • link • report

Hmm, perhaps ddot is acting strategically here. Building the lanes now, before most buildings have filled in, probably will make the whole process easier. Trying to do this on M Street NW would be murder right now, largely because people are afraid of losing lane-miles. It would seem less scary to motorists if they never had the lanes in the first place - and people might actually see the lane as an asset.

One other thing – those poles tend to be ugly. One of the reason NYC’s bike lanes have been such a splash is that the DOT adhered to quality design standards. Even people who think the Broadway reconfiguration admit that it makes the city more pleasant. In DC, a lot of those flimsy poles don’t last 2 months, so spending a little more money for something expected to last at least two years should be a part of the plan.

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 1, 2009 4:35 pm • link • report

I've also fixed the links in the original post. Sorry - that was my error in copying things over and putting in the URL to the local copy with a minor typo.

by David Alpert on Dec 1, 2009 4:35 pm • link • report

I agree with you on this Neil- DC DOT is taking the cheapest possible alternative and the least controvesial.
It really does make one suspect that they are fearful of the suburban motorist / congressional overlords- in DC we have seen this kind of thing over and over again throughout the years so one just about automatically assmues this is the case.

Why we even have a DC government at all is the question- they seem, so often, to act in ways that are totally against the citizenry and DC taxpayers.

We pay for these vampires who call themselves DC public serveants- but others call the shots.

by w on Dec 1, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report

Several issues here:

1. There is no need to totally eliminate parking along M St to install bike lanes. If there ever is a true retail-entertainment district along M St and Half St SE, and if that district wants to survive outside of baseball season, then some parking will be needed. As for streetcars along M St? We should all live that long.

2. If the Nationals on-field performance improves, and if that results in greater attendance... Well lets just stop right there. That is a major unknown right now. Remember two factors. First, DC has never been a town that has supported a baseball team in significant numbers and does not currently support the team now. Second, Nationals Park, for a lot of reasons, never had the "honeymoon period" of increased attendance that most new stadiums have. Thus, attendance may never increase, or it may increase. This is a major unknown right now.

3. OK, lets say that the best scenario plays out. The Nats starting winning and the fans routinely sell out the stadium. Why would you expect Red Sox-level back ups? When the Nats sell out games agains the Red Sox, its because of Red Sox fans, either travelling from Boston or locals who have no interest in attending other games. Thus these people are unfamiliar with the area and the parking and less likely to take Metro. If the Nationals regularly sell-out with local fans, one can reasonably expect that those fans will work themselves into the existing parking-traffic-Metro routine. Rmember, right now there is a surplus of parking for nearly every game.

4. I would be curious if any major sports stadium in any city in the US has ever had a signficant percentage of its fan base bike to games. I can't imagine it. Maybe DC will be the first? Maybe not. But I wouldn't use that to support building bike lanes.

by metronic on Dec 1, 2009 6:19 pm • link • report

I agree with W (& JTS & others) about the need for protected cycletracks downtown, and that the failure to install them is more about meeting suburbanites' "needs" than those of DC residents.

That said, I'm getting tired of the "northern Virginia soccer moms in SUVs" line. In addition to being an offensive sexist stereotype, it doesn't really make any sense. What downtown soccer fields are women from the suburbs supposedly driving their kids to??

by g on Dec 1, 2009 6:35 pm • link • report

I don't know. I go to BAC meetings where DDOT talks about the things they plan and why they do or don't do them and I've never heard them mention the interests of suburbanites. Not once. They do mention the concerns of locals. They have in the past - though not recently - expressed great reluctance in taking out parking to put in bike lanes because of the political uproar that would cause. They also believe that when possible bike lanes should be placed on secondary streets instead of busier ones (T instead of U, L instead of K and not on most diagonal streets) for safety - which is a bicycle boulevard sort of idea.

In this case they may be giving into political pressure as M Street doesn't even have a bike lane in the master plan, let along a cycletrack. But here they have a CM pushing for the project and a street over capacity and a baseball stadium that didn't exist when the bike plan was written so who blames them for taking the low hanging fruit when they can.

DDOT does get that M Street NW/NE needs a separated on road bike way. And it is one of three streets in DC to have one in the bike plan (along with 15th and 17th NW). They just haven't had the chance to do it, yet. In general they've added bike facilities as roads were being rebuilt, repaved and repainted. Recently they've gotten more aggressive such as 15th NW, now on M and soon on Penn NW one can hope. Again, for this they should be complemented. Give them time, the bike team is small and overworked but moving in the right direction.

by David C on Dec 1, 2009 10:05 pm • link • report

I've been by the 15th Street NW cycle track ... Only a once or twice have I seen a bicyclist in it. (Plus once saw a bicyclist there taking pictures of it.) Any thoughts on why it isn't getting used much?

by Lance on Dec 1, 2009 11:07 pm • link • report

I don't know why. I use it. Possibilities are 1) It doesn't go far enough north or south 2) people still feel safer on 14th 3) cyclists haven't changed their patterns yet 4) small sample size 5) Observer bias 6) Cyclists are there, but blocked by parked cars 7) other

by David C on Dec 1, 2009 11:21 pm • link • report

Just got home here in Columbia Heights after riding my bike from I Street NW where I work to a little yacht club on the Anacostia (1409 Water Street SE) then up here. It seems at this time the streets north of M are very accommodating and enjoyable. Why spend the $ and aggravate hard core (bike-hating) Navy Yard employees now? I say work on keeping the streets north pleasant bike usable.

by Amy Smith on Dec 1, 2009 11:35 pm • link • report

the cycletracks need to be one continous network thoughout the city. It needs to be physically protected and well marked. It needs to connect destinations, like chinatown to georgetown. the tracks need their own signals, bollards and jersey barriers, color-coded pavement, turn lanes in the bike tracks, bike corrals, a "green wave" at rush hour, etc.

You can't just built a little half-ass counter-counterflow cycletrack with flexiposts over here, and another little one over there, and expect them to each be any big splash success.

15th st is such a half-ass job - no northbound lane on a one-way northbound street - what the hell? Counter-counter-flow riding being the only option for the bike track in the same direction as one-way auto traffic on the street makes no sense at all.

by Lee Watkins on Dec 2, 2009 7:04 am • link • report

Yes, DC needs more bike infrastructure blah blah blah. But can everyone just please get behind this plan? Sure M st SW/SE isn't used by most of us but this is great opportunity to grab a big chunk of asphalt for us cyclists. This doesn't just support the baseball stadium. This a long stretch that covers the SW Waterfront, the new Waterfront metro redevelopment, the stadium and half street, Navy Yards, Barracks Row, and then on to the RFK stadium area or across the soon to be new and bike friendly 11th st bridge.

wd

by wd on Dec 2, 2009 8:12 am • link • report

Lee Watkins- where have you been all of these years?
I have been a lone voice in the wastes about this issue for quite some time. It is good to hear your sage comments.

As for "g"- maybe I come across as "sexist" , but my own personal experience is of many many very bad drivers sporting Virginia plates, often talking on phones.
I do admit to adding the " soccer mom " part for dramatic and comical effect- it is not meant as any kind of "sexist" statement- which to me sounds rather bizzare- since I actually have heard Virginia cyclists complain about this very phenomenon. There are a lot of younger women who drive aggressively, and also smoke cigarettes and drive. Pointing this out to me is not "sexist"- it is merely an observation. When I am on my bicycle- I am often forced to cope with all kinds of crazy drivers- and regard them mostly as the "enemy" . This is a self preservation mindset- it has worked so far. Of course- not all drivers are bad people- but I do keep the picture in my mind when I am forced to bike on the street. It is so taken for granted around here that cyclists are "nutty people" and that cycling is some kind of hobby for eccentric types, that one must develop a sense of priority or face death by SUV or whatever.

If I have any real prejudices- they revolve around errant and aggressive SUV drivers- in general.The people who drive them often seem to operate their vehicles as if there was nothing/ nobody else around them and as if they were in a cocoon , I see a lot of very aggressive driving behaviors from SUV drivers.

I have no reason to like them at all, and many of them are downright dangerous and not at all considerate of pedestrians or cyclists. I feel much safer being away from them.

by w on Dec 2, 2009 10:15 am • link • report

In my experience with "errant and aggressive drivers", vehicle type doesn't matter. ALL vehicle types have equally guilty drivers...

by Froggie on Dec 2, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report

I agree- but there is also something about SUV drivers that really does set them apart.

It is the "image" identity that they have of themselves as drivers/owners of these un -necssary behemoths.

Someone needs to do a posting about the role of "image" people are led to believe that they have when they drive a certain kind of automobile. This is a very insipid and dangerous part of the advertising that far too many Americans buy into.

In other words- the sick and depraved notion that "you are what you drive". To many people this is somehow normal.

It is a very complex and irrational psycology process at work here.

by w on Dec 2, 2009 12:30 pm • link • report

You have to start somewhere, and the 15th street track is a good start. It will be used more as people get to know it, and if it is connected further north and south. The M Street facility seems like a good second step.

To those who want more facilities in the needed areas now, I would say that DDOT needs to experiment with them in these other areas first. I am glad they are even making this progress.

Patience is a virtue! :)

by himle on Dec 2, 2009 12:51 pm • link • report

I live near the Waterfront Metro. Prior to the stadium & US DOT going in, biking down M wasn't too bad, and was a pretty easy way to get across South Capitol (there are a limited number of intersections where you can drive or bike across S. Cap on this side of the river). Now that those two traffic drivers have come to the Navy Yard, I will often go out of my way up to I street in order to cross S. Cap, and when I do across M, I will usually quickly turn left and go up a block to L street where I can get out of the faster traffic. Having dedicated lanes will make the ride down to, say, Barracks Row, faster, though I'm curious how they'll deal with the intersection at S. Cap itself, since a large volume of east-bound traffic on M turns right there to get onto S. Cap.

by Moose on Dec 2, 2009 12:55 pm • link • report

Interesting ... So it's pretty much agreed that what was laid down on 15th St NW was an experiment related to bike lanes and cycle tracks ... and not a calming measure for the street ... as it was sold to the neighbors.

by Lance on Dec 3, 2009 12:17 pm • link • report

@Lance. I don't see where anyone here says that. I think narrowing the street by a lane, and making the right NB lane more inviting to cyclists will probably have some calming effect. DDOT is studying the impact and I hope that will include a study of traffic speeds before and after.

by David C on Dec 3, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

David C., This was presented to the neighborhood as a project to calm that street and return it to neighborhood use. Do you not agree that it's pretty obvious that the primary purpose of this project wasn't to return the street to the neighborhood, but instead to try out a new way of doing bike lanes/ cycle tracks in the District? I mean if their primary purpose was to make this street more residential than (1) there would have been the option of 'no bikelanes' and (2) they never would have put those ugly yellow barriers in the street as well as that signage.

by Lance on Dec 3, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report

Lance, I don't recall it being presented that way. It was presented as a way to improve a street that was too wide and underutilized. Making the street more neighborhood-like was a benefit of making it two-way, and I personally recommended the two-way plan, but many residents of the street objected to two-way.

by David Alpert on Dec 3, 2009 12:52 pm • link • report

@Lance, Here is what DDOT said about it "In order to reflect its residential character and make walking and bicycling safer and more convenient, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is examining the possibility of adding bicycle lanes and converting the operation to two-way traffic."

That doesn't really make traffic calming a top priority, plus as David pointed out, it wasn't converted to two-way traffic. WABA supported two-way traffic and I suspect most cyclists voted for that. But it wasn't overwhelming, which means that a lot of other people must've voted to not go two-way (in fact No Build was the 2nd highest vote getter). If people in the community wanted traffic calming, they didn't do enough to get their voice heard.

by David C on Dec 3, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report