Bicycling
Choose bike boulevards over bike lanes around H Street, NE
The 2005 Bicycle Master Plan includes bike lanes on streets parallel to H Street NE, but bike lanes aren't always the best approach. In this neighborhood, bike boulevards would help bicyclists while creating more obvious benefits for all neighborhood residents as well.
Photo by Full-Time Lover on Flickr.
A "bike boulevard" prioritizes cyclists and pedestrians. And it provides motorists slower, more consistent speeds instead of the all-too-familiar race between stop signs and speed humps.
A combination of bike boulevard tools can make our streets safer and quieter. Some of these are familiar to the District, others are new. These strategies include sharrows, bulb-outs, modified speed humps and reorientation of stop signs.
As currently proposed, bike lanes on G and I Streets, NE between 2nd and 13th would be just fine. But DDOT could do even better by creating a neighborhood street that provides traffic calming for residents and road users while also giving a better facility to bicyclists by implementing some of the following treatments.
Sharrows on 12th Street NE. Photo by the author.
As bicycle planner Mia Birk notes, sharrows are often most appropriate when "the speed differential between cyclists and motorists is either low or zero." Residential streets like G and I fit this situation perfectly.
The primary method of controlling speed on many residential streets has been the stop sign, with four-way stops at nearly every block. In theory, this keeps speeds low, but many drivers will speed between intersections, while both motorists and cyclists will slowly roll through stop signs. This makes the street experience frustrating, and sometimes dangerous.
Photo by BikePortland.org on Flickr.
At intersections without mini-roundabouts, slow-moving east-west traffic would not stop, while north-south traffic would have stop signs. These "partial-stop" intersections, as seen at 5th and R NW, are not uncommon in DC.
There are more treatments that can be used to keep traffic traveling at a slow pace. Speed humps are a common sight throughout DC, but over-reliance has led to noisy and dangerous short-distance speeding by some motorists not unlike the speeding often seen between stop signs.
For a better example, we only have to look to Arlington, where some speed humps include groooves for motor vehicles. Motorists must slow to align their vehicles' wheels with the grooves, but do not experience the cringe-inducing bounce that can sometimes scrape the undercarraige. By riding in the grooves, cyclists can reduce wear and tear on their bikes, as well.
Photo by Washington Area Bicyclist Association on Flickr.
Areas near intersections where parking is currently prohibited for visibility reasons can also be converted into bike corrals, which provide bike parking and some protection for pedestrians without reducing visibility for motorists.
DC's first bike corrals were recently installed in Georgetown and Columbia Heights. By serving the traffic calming needs of pedestrians, the parking needs of cyclists and the visibility needs of motorists without removing on-street parking, bike corrals can be a great addition to some neighborhood streets.
Photo by BikePortland.org on Flickr.
It may be desirable to prevent motorists on G and I from continuing across 8th Street, or to prevent drivers on 8th Street from turning left onto G or I. The effectiveness of this type of prohibition at 8th Street H Street vs. U Street
The current plan for bike lanes along the H Street corridor is similar to how DDOT has managed bike facilities along the U Street NW corridor. Bike lanes are provided not on the major thoroughfare itself but are instead striped on parallel residential streets. Near U Street, T and V streets have bike lanes. In Northeast, lanes are planned not for H Street but on G and I.
The addition of streetcar tracks to H Street makes DDOT's decision to provide altnerate routes for cyclists even more appropriate. While streetcar service will be a major mobility improvement, the introduction of streetcar tracks to H Street poses challenges for cyclists navigating the area. While there are ways to reduce the danger to cyclists, one of the best practices of bike/streetcar planning is the provision of parallel alternate routes for cyclists. G and I streets are an ideal alternative to H Street for bicycle traffic.
So why would a bike boulevard be better for G and I streets NE, while bike lanes are best for T and V streets NW? Although these corridors have some similarities, there are important differences. T Street, especially, functions as a secondary through route from Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan to Bloomingdale and Shaw. As a result, it carries significantly more motor vehicle traffic than G and I, which are cut off by Union Station at 2nd Street NE.
The difference is evident when you think about restricting through and left-turning traffic at major cross streets. Restricting through traffic along T Street at 14th Street, for example, would have a much bigger negative impact than doing so on G or I at 8th Street. Finally, for busier roads like T Street, bike lanes are a better choice because they carve out a space in the road for cyclists that would otherwise be taken by motor vehicles. This isn't the case on quieter, more residential streets.
Bike boulevards were first implemented in American cities such as Berkeley and Portland and have become popular additions to their neighborhoods. When surveyed, the majority of residents on a bicycle boulevard in Portland "generally agree...that these low-traffic bikeways have a positive impact on quality of life, home values, sense of community, noise [and] air quality."
Because cyclists are not the only beneficiaries of these traffic-calming interventions, Portland's Bureau of Transportaton broadened the scope of its bike boulevards and rechristened them as Neighborhood Greenways. PBOT has also begun partnering with other city agencies to include features like vegetated stormwater capture areas that double as traffic-calming curb extensions. We've seen some similar work in our area, most recently on the sidewalk in front of the new Casey Trees headquarters in Brookland and by Constitution Square on 1st Street NE. The region's most holistic "green street" is found in Edmonston, Maryland.
Looking ahead
DDOT is interested in implementing this type of facility; the agency is already looking at bicycle boulevards as part of the Rock Creek West II Livability Study.
It's important to remember that not every bike boulevard must include the full complement of treatments. For example, it's not always appropriate to restrict turns and through traffic, and curb extensions or stormwater capture areas could be cost-prohibitive for some projects. But as DDOT's protected bike lane projects have shown, the agency is able to implement cost-effective facilities that have been done at greater cost elsewhere.
The District needs to expand its repertoire of bike facilities to include more than just bike lanes. With the addition of 15th Street's protected bike lane and the Metropolitan Branch Trail, DDOT has strengthened the types and number of facilities that separate cyclists from other road users.
And while not every street should have a bike lane, every street should be a complete street. For quieter residential areas, bike boulevard treatments can be important tools as DC expands its bike network beyond the city's core.
Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program. 
Comments
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
by Fritz on Dec 14, 2010 11:50 am • link • report
by dc denizen on Dec 14, 2010 11:56 am • link • report
by anonymous on Dec 14, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report
Taking away parking on one side will be a non-starter with the residents who live in that area.
by anon on Dec 14, 2010 12:11 pm • link • report
by anon on Dec 14, 2010 12:15 pm • link • report
by Eric Fidler on Dec 14, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report
That said, I quite like those mini-roundabouts, and vehemently dislike partial-stop intersections.
by andrew on Dec 14, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report
by andrew on Dec 14, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report
1. i live on I street and support any and all traffic calming. it's currently used by commuters who want to speed without stoplights or construction. I'd much prefer bikers than maryland speed demons--even if it made my parking a little tighter. i have a bike and a car, for the record.
2. the issue with this plan--like many of the bike plans in this city--is: where does this connect to and from the rest of the city. are cyclists supposed to go over the hopscotch bridge? Take their chances on K street ne under the tracks? just putting in stretches of bike lanes without connections doesn't do much, because the connections run through the hard parts of town to navigate on bikes--and that's where there's no help for bikers. going around union station on a bike? hair raising. going over hopscotch? better, but only on the sidewalk, which gets you in trouble with pedestrians. going under K street? horrible traffic (speeds approaching 50) no shoulder or sidewalk again. these bike plans have to work in the difficult sections of the city, or else they are pretty much useless.
Without all the fuss, one can ride down either G or I now. We could use the traffic calming, but this is not really a huge improvement for cyclists. But we don't have answers/plans for the connection to the rest of the city. That's the fundamental problem.
And I see it elsewhere. Like when I was running down the hill of Mass Ave SE from Eastern ave to Minnesota avenue. There's a great bike lane there. Going from nowhere to nowhere. That's really no accomplishment. Neither would these cycle-tracks on one way streets flanking H be a great accomplishment.
by h street resident on Dec 14, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report
by ontarioroader on Dec 14, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report
Given a coalition of pedestrians, cyclists, and (as dc denizen) pointed out, neighborhood residents, I wouldn't be too sure about what the future holds, Fritz. If anything, I think we're watching the sun go down on the Golden Age of driving in DC.
But as far as this particular set of streets (G and I running parallel to H), I think you'd get just as much bang for your buck throwing down some bike "sharrows". After all, how much infrastructure do you really need on G St, NE between 3rd and 14th?
Really, the only thing you really must do is make these two roads completely unpalatable for Maryland commuters, who tend to dominate this area in the mornings and evenings. I like the idea of blocking through traffic at 8th.
by oboe on Dec 14, 2010 12:22 pm • link • report
by Allan on Dec 14, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report
by Fred in RVA on Dec 14, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report
Unfortunately (for him, at least), he miscalculated and will have to get a new job.
by Fritz on Dec 14, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Dec 14, 2010 12:51 pm • link • report
To be blunt though, more and more jobs are moving out to the 'burbs (check the plans for the upcoming BRAC the military is doing). It makes more sense to defund biking projects and public transportation to pay for what America really takes to work: highways and major arterial roads.
by MPC on Dec 14, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report
1. make drivers aware that cyclists use the street also
2. are placed within the lane at a distance from the curb that indicates to cyclists where it is safe to travel without risk of being hit by an opening door from a parked car.
by spookiness on Dec 14, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report
"I want my subsidies!! More subsidies!!! Give me other people's money!!! Waaah!!
by John on Dec 14, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015660618563654.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5
by John on Dec 14, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
So.... I am not in America when commuting by bus, train and foot?
by Jasper on Dec 14, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report
Up until that comment, I've never been tempted to use profanity in a comment on this blog, but you're pushing me pretty close to the edge...
If you want to live and work in the suburbs, go live and work in the suburbs. Don't expect the residents of DC to bend over backwards for the benefit of people who neither live nor work here (actually, what was your point?). We're talking about painting some extra symbols on two very quiet neighborhood streets, not rebuilding Rome overnight.
I'm sure you'd be pissed if people started using your suburban neighborhood as a commuter through-route too. Currently, G and I streets are not wide enough to safely drive more than ~15-20mph on (which is about the same speed as a cyclist keeping a brisk pace). Adding some sharrows will improve safety, and probably won't effect drivers at all.
It's never been safe to speed through Capitol Hill at 30mph on a single-lane road.
by andrew on Dec 14, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report
I am not sure what you are saying. Your whole complaint is suburban commuters, commuting through your neighborhood, so yes, the District is, does and will continue to accomodate suburbia. And before anyone jumps out and takes the indignant approach that DC should only be spending dollars accomodating and planning for District residents, you have to realize our mass transit system which folks here are such ardent supporters of, wouldn't exist at all if it were to simply accomodate District residents. Metrobus would be signficantly smaller and metrorail wouldn't exist at all.
On another note, commuters didn't "just" start using your street yesterday. I have to roll my eyes at the lack of thought or preparation when people move into neighborhoods or buy homes without spending 2 seconds understanding the issues that come with it, then get all high and mighty afterward. Your situation is no different than if you had moved next to a firestation and then complained about all the sirens (unfortunately I know people who recently did that).
by freely on Dec 14, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report
I've always like roundabouts in residential areas. Rio Rancho, NM used them well, IMO. And the few place in Arlington with roundabouts sans stop signs are great. A roundabout with a stop sign defeats the purpose of it since the underlying principle is that a driver/cyclist/pedestrian is required to pay attention to successfully navigate the roundabout.
Wayne Wentz thought that the roundabouts were a huge success in Seattle: it would be illustrative to see the differences between them and the Portland circles that Allan references.
by Geof Gee on Dec 14, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report
@oboe: I believe Gridlock Gabe was banking on the fact that the Age of Cars was at an end and the Age of Bikes, Streetcars and Monorails was upon us.
That all sounds nice, but there's a pretty clear argument why the Age of Happy Motoring in DC is coming to a close: more and wealthier households, DC roads at capacity, no way to expand, increasing number of cyclists, etc, etc...
Things are going to get worse for drivers in the city regardless of what public policy decisions get made.
I'm curious, what's your argument that we're at the dawning of some golden age of automobile travel in the city? Other than that, "People like to drive"?
Just seems unlikely is all I'm saying.
by oboe on Dec 14, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report
by Tina on Dec 14, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report
That's all very stirring and everything, but unfortunately folks who like to ride and walk places are self-selecting for urban living. It's a mainstream position, and the majority is growing by the year. To impose your vision on DC, you'd need to eliminate anything even approaching self-determination.
Let's just say I'm not super-concerned with that prospect coming to pass.
As far as "what America really takes to work: highways and major arterial roads", well...I guess that's true for most of America...because that's all they've got. Certainly not the case with the top ten US cities, though.
by oboe on Dec 14, 2010 3:19 pm • link • report
Still from the standpoint of a direction westward connection without having to go up and over the bridge, K Street is the most direct route, but is not suitable for a bike boulevard treatment.
When I lived in the neighborhood, granted it was a "long time ago" now, 5 years, but I lived there for about 15 years, G and I were not used by commuters, although it is possible with the current construction program on H Street, that some people are now doing so.
For years I had been promoting that these particular streets be converted to two way, in order to increase traffic, because the relatively small amount of traffic helped contribute to the creation of order vacuums and therefore assisted drug sales, which at least at one time, were problems at various points along both G and I.
by Richard Layman on Dec 14, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report
Let's turn this around for a moment: I have to roll my eyes at the lack of thought or preparation when people move to neighborhoods (i.e. east of the city) where the commute is dependent wholly on being able to speed through residential neighborhoods in a private automobile.
Of course at some point the traffic flow is going to become great enough that the locals are going to do what they do in every suburban neighborhood in Maryland and Virginia: they're going to choke off the traffic, and let the commuters take arterials. (And let's be clear, East Capitol, C Street, and Connecticut are residential streets.)
These 150 year old residential streets have been raceways for, what? A few decades? Did they really thing that was sustainable? Short-sighted if you ask me.
by oboe on Dec 14, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 14, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report
Fair enough. I concede that car-commuting into DC by non-residents will continue to be popular into the foreseeable future. Still, I think the evidence shows that it'll never be easier to get around DC by private automobile than it is now--all downhill from here. The fact that DC voters are growing less car-oriented would seem to play a major factor in that.
Though I'll be willing to admit I'm wrong if it comes to it.
by oboe on Dec 14, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report
by David C on Dec 14, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report
by David C on Dec 14, 2010 5:29 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 14, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report
Bonus points that Fritz is a relative conservative, and therefore shouldn't want subsidies and love local control.
by John on Dec 14, 2010 5:38 pm • link • report
Has there been any polls, surveys, tallies on how many DC residents actually use bikes to commute/shop around DC instead of just for fun ?
I maybe see one person riding a bike a day vs many children/teens riding a bike around a block or two for fun.
by kk on Dec 14, 2010 5:49 pm • link • report
Can I come race down your suburban streets like you race down mine? G and I are residential streets, not throughways. G actually isn't bad right now, but I is.
And MLC, when suburbanites starting paying for the wear and tear they impose on DC streets, then they can start complaining. Congress doesn't let DC generate revenue from them.
by lou on Dec 14, 2010 5:51 pm • link • report
by David C on Dec 14, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report
Most DC streets predate the car, which means they are at odd widths for roads. By odd I mean too narrow for two lanes but wider than one. Since two very narrow lanes is not an option, we end up with one very wide one. DDOT started using this extra space to make bike lanes. This is why you see more bike lanes in the L'Enfant City than you do farther out where the roads were built with cars in mind. The vast majority of bike lanes were made from this extra stuff. They're like donut holes. The same cannot be done for bus lanes.
That being said, the DC area just got a TIGER grant that I think includes bus lanes.
by David C on Dec 14, 2010 6:09 pm • link • report
Now, now, now. The hippies didn't kill the freeways.
The Masons did, with help from the Pope.
by Matt Johnson on Dec 14, 2010 6:41 pm • link • report
The driving force - no pun intended - of Washington D.C. is the suburban commuter who drives in from Virginia and Maryland. THEY should be the focus of the district's transportation issues, not the biking crowd.
They don't live in DC, and they certainly aren't taking H Street to get into the city in the morning.
by JustMe on Dec 14, 2010 7:07 pm • link • report
@ DavidC: By your definition, then I too am a cyclist. Of course, your logic reminds me of a Beavis & Butthead episode where they go to a lingerie store, touch lots of underwear, and yell "I scored!" under the theory that because they touched undies, and those undies would touch women, they therefore were also touching women.
In other words, if the definition is that broadly encompassing, then it clearly is meaningless.
by Fritz on Dec 14, 2010 7:38 pm • link • report
As the city grows and the H St. commercial district attracts more people, it's not a leap to assume that areas overall traffic volume will go up (does DDOT have projection data they're sharing?). Through-put on the side streets will be critical to avoid M St. level congestion, and limiting certain turning movements, through-auto access on certain blocks and other key factors that make bicycle boulevards work well intentionally prevent that. Had this been done on the other side of town U, 14th, 16th, Florida and New Hampshire would be parking lots. Well, more so than they are now.
Though I haven't ridden them recently, I would disagree that G and I streets have low to zero differential between auto and bike speeds. While sharrows may intend to show cyclists are present or even cyclist priority, they simply don't slow traffic. Bike lanes on these streets would, and even if not to the extent of allowing bikes and cars to travel at the same speed, would allow for less conflict between the modes.
Bike boulevards should work much better for streets Rock Creek West II study as well as the large swaths of residential areas in Wards 3, 5 and 7. There, these residential street systems are bordered by larger arterial roadways that can handle the additional volume of through traffic that are pushed off the residential streets. These blocks are often longer and to some degree "feel" more residential. Part of what seems to work so well on many of Portland's bicycle boulevards is the character of the streets, from the family styled Subaru wagon's in the driveway to the kids playing in the yard such as on NE 16th.It's almost Mayberry-esque. Streets like SE Ankeny where there is commercial districts both bordering and even on the street don't work nearly as well in my opinion.
Lacking from this discussion is how neither approach fully addresses the needs of cyclists. DDOT has a nasty habit of relegating cyclists to cyclists to periphery streets. Sure, they've created a fairly well connected and fairly well used bike way system through this. With the exception of a mile long stretch of 14th St. DDOT has routinely left out a safe cycling option on commercial corridors. These are the same street that make up the vast majority of the destinations. Non-bike friendly streetcar track design on H St., bike accommodations left out of final K St. transit-way plans and the lack of bike lanes on 18th St redesign. They've installed bike racks, so they know we ride there. We've overwhelmingly spoken up at public meetings and through submitted public comment, yet have been shortchanged. The next commercial corridor to get a facelift will be the real test of the new Complete Streets policy.
by jeff on Dec 14, 2010 8:04 pm • link • report
I do disagree with you about K Street. It's such a busy street, that I think it's reasonable to divert cyclists to high quality cycletracks on L and M.
This came up during the Dutch bicycle workshop, and Kristin Haldeman from WMATA took your position.
There aren't "standards" out there about ADT volumes and recommendations for bike facilities. I figure that with ADTs> 30,000 and with high quality alternatives, that the alternatives are preferred.
I do think that it's preferred to divert bicylists who want safer conditions to parallel streets, i.e., 13th instead of 14th, or 15th instead of 14th or 16th.
It's about the difference between Geller's "Strong and Fearless" + "Enthused and Confident" vs. the "Interested but Concerned."
The first two categories make up about 10% of the population, and the third category makes up not quite 60% of the population.
- http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/08/04/PortlandsBicycle/
by Richard Layman on Dec 14, 2010 8:40 pm • link • report
Riding a bike makes you a cyclist. It's not logic, it's the definition of the word. If you would like to say that riding a bike does NOT make you a cyclist I'm interested in hearing how that works. This is going to be equal parts hysterical and sad.
by David C on Dec 14, 2010 8:45 pm • link • report
I think we went back and forth on K Street when it was an issue. I work on K Street. So do lots of cyclists. We still have to access the street. It connects directly to the Capital Crescent trail and has a larger right of way than L or M. BRT, traditional travel lanes, bike facilities and the nice wide sidewalks would make for a pretty fantastic model street. Maybe not as symbolic as bike lanes on Penn, but damn close. It shouldn't be a zero sum game though.
Your other reference and analogies still seem to miss the point. Cyclists ride on all those streets regardless. They have to, it's where they are going!
Roger's cyclist grouping doesn't limit Portland's use to only one type of facility. Portland is great because it has a network made up of all types of facilities on all types of roads.
by jeff on Dec 14, 2010 9:18 pm • link • report
by Tyro on Dec 14, 2010 9:28 pm • link • report
by Charles on Dec 14, 2010 11:07 pm • link • report
I'd argue that this Alta Recommendations Report is incorrect/wrong and/or that you're reading/interpreting/using it incorrectly -- in this case, I think it's probably a bit of both.
Stated another way, suggesting that it is preferable to provide appropriate bike infrastructure on 'parallel residential streets' instead of or ahead of providing inappropriate bike infrastructure on major thoroughfares is not likely to result in a meaningful discussion.
Instead, we need to ask if it is appropriate to provide bike infrastructure on major thoroughfares, residential streets, neither, or both. I argue 'both'.
If it is absolutely not possible, for whatever reasons, to provide appropriate bicycle infrastructure on a major thoroughfare (let's say, because of the presence of rails), then we can talk about the myriad ways we might be able to address that situation. One way to help mitigate some of the harmful effects of such a design would be to provide SUPERDUPERWORLDCLASS bike facilities on parallel streets, but this would not, in my opinion, be preferable to providing appropriate bicycle infrastructure on the major thoroughfare in question.
One can imagine pedestrian+tram-only streets, but once you start talking about a thoroughfare ('major' or otherwise) that would allow cars but not allow bicycles, then all bets are off -- the circumstances where we'd want to allow something like that to happen would/should be so extraordinary as to be virtually nonexistent. Basically, it should never happen, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
I think the Alta report sort of hints at this conclusion, but only slightly -- so the report allows us to draw our own conclusions about whether we should want to accommodate bike facilities on major thoroughfares or not. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the problem is that we may have allowed folks to think/suggest that Alta Planning recommends, as a 'Best Practice', that bikes be kept off of major thoroughfares and/or streetcar/tram/railroad-inhabited streets, and that is, I believe, inaccurate and/or a bad/illegitimate recommendation.
So, the moral of this story can be summed up by reappropriating a Chomsky-ism, who says:
In terms of bikes: I'm glad Bezerkeley was mentioned, because they and places like Palo Alto did their bike boulevards 40 years ago and never touched any of their major thoroughfares, and that's exactly why their bike mode shares are still pitiful, and will remain pitiful as long as they refuse to take bikes seriously. These towns and DC need to take biking seriously by making room for bikes on their major thoroughfares.As we all know, incoming Mayor Vince Gray says he's not against biking -- he just wants bikes kept off the major thoroughfares -- which means he's against biking. That's why I opposed him. At least we won't be surprised by what types of bike policies he tries to institute. It'll be up to those of us who want a 'bikey' future to continue to push him in the right direction.
So, everyone here has to decide for themselves -- are you for biking, or against it? Are you for biking on major thoroughfares (that is, are you for making biking on major thoroughfares safe/comfortable/convenient/dignified?), or against it?
To my knowledge, there is not a single neighborhood/village/town/city/state/country/continent/planet that has a high bike mode share that does not have bike-friendly major thoroughfares. If you think you know an exception, please let me/us know. There are many reasons why bike-friendly major thoroughfares are required to allow for a bike-friendly city to develop, but they can be summed up by saying that people who could potentially travel by bike are....people, which means they have places to go and things to do and people to see and they need to get to their destinations and back before they grow old, just like...people, generally. And if they are unable to do so, they'll drive, or take a train, etc. Simple.
but do not experience the cringe-inducing bounce that can sometimes scrape the undercarriage
this strikes me as a bit of a weird thing to say. why are we so concerned with allowing drivers to maintain higher-than-appropriate rates of speed? and why would we want drivers eyes' looking down at the road immediately in front of them instead of scanning the streets for darting children? and why would we have the speed humps there at all if our purpose is to subvert their purpose with 'grooves'? is that like the 'forgiving roadway' design philosophy that I thought we'd already relegated to the compost heap?
driving home tonight, i made a wrong turn and wound up circling the San Jose Airport (which has huge, new, multi-lane, one-way roadways which ban bikes) -- a fellow driver cut me off w/o a blinker (#cyclistsarejerks) and sped up a bit and then hit a speed hump going a lot faster than he should have been -- he got a little cringe-inducing-for-him-scraping, and rightfully so -- better than a cringe-inducing scream from some tourist in the crosswalk.
the odd part, tho, is that we create these high-speed road designs, and then try to _slow_ traffic on them by installing speed humps -- are our traffic engineers schizophrenic? as Richard Layman mentioned above, we need to two-way these streets. speed bumps and humps are like the 'nature Band-aids' that James Howard Kunstler talks about -- but they're 'urban planning Band-aids' that won't heal this 'wounded and mutilated urbanism' known as one-way streets -- we need to address the root problem and make these streets two-way again.
there are other good reasons to two-way streets -- walkers and bikers need direct access to our destinations. that's why we have this urban Band-aid known as 'contra-flow bike lanes' (like the 15th Street contraflow bike lane) instead of regular two-way streets. now the 15th Street one-way contraflow bike lane is about to become two-way -- that's good, but it still represents a corruption of the original two-way design of the street, and is still just a Band-aid that addresses the symptoms of a malignant street design (all one-way streets are malignant, by definition).
at least one Euro town expressly allow bikes to travel the 'wrong way' up one-way streets -- because it's obvious that bikes need to be able to travel from point to point in as direct a fashion as possible. DC should follow suit, but the preferable solution would be to just two-way all streets.
And while not every street should have a bike lane, every street should be a complete street.
If you truly believe this to be the case, then start advocating that we fix the malignant design of H Street, K Street, and every other street that has or will ban bikes.
Gridlock Gabe
Gridlock Sam is a revered figure in New York City, just as Gridlock Gabe is a revered figure in DC. I'm sure Gabe will appreciate knowing he can count you as a fan.
With Gray in office, I look forward to seeing this implemented in 2025.
i understand and can even appreciate this sentiment, but y'all got a great thing going here at GGW. keep up the good work. if we continue to organize and educate ourselves, we can force whoever is in office to do what we want, as opposed to what the elites want.
Certainly cars and bikes are different, but they're both fast-moving objects that can kill on impact.
huh? kill on impact? listen, refrigerators are certainly different from cars and bikes, and they can all be fast-moving objects that can kill on impact, but does that mean we should ban refrigerators? no - cars are not equivalent to bikes are not equivalent to refrigerators.
will instead better reflect the concerns of the other 95% of commuters.
as someone pointed out, commuters are only one subset of users of DC's streets -- certainly not the biggest subset. i'd guess that maybe 20% of all trips on DC's streets are commuter trips. anyone have an official number? car commutes, of course, would represent an even smaller percentage of all trips -- maybe 3%? car-based commuter needs have been prioritized over the needs of every other type of commuter, and every other type of trip, for decades -- we're slowly starting to turn things around, tho, and the city is all the better for it.
[Suburban commuters] should be the focus of the district's transportation issues, not the biking crowd.
hey, feel free to keep making that case. maybe you can convince Mayor Gray that it is Virginia and Maryland taxpayers that he needs to answer to, and not DC taxpayers.
If DC can build bikes lanes all over the city taking up space can someone tell me why can we not build bus lanes; which will benefit more of DC's population.
wrong on all counts. bus lanes are failures almost everywhere they're built. they're failures themselves, and the cause knock-on failures. and, unlike bike lanes, bus lanes take up a incredible amount of space -- they don't fit into the urban fabric. we have to do away with them. the best way to achieve this, imo, is to reduce and eventually remove the need for them, and we do this by providing high-quality walk and bike infrastructure first, and then providing rail transit. nobody has ever wanted to ride the bus -- people are forced to ride the bus -- that needs to end. forcing people to ride buses is dehumanizing -- nobody should be forced into such a situation.
Has there been any polls, surveys, tallies on how many DC residents actually use bikes to commute/shop around DC instead of just for fun ?
yes.
I maybe see one person riding a bike a day vs many children/teens riding a bike around a block or two for fun.
that's because DC lacks appropriate bike facilities on its major thoroughfares, as i argued near the top of this monster comment. traffic-calmed neighborhoods are great for...walking and riding around in neighborhoods, but not much else -- we need the major thoroughfares to be make walk- and bike-friendly.
by Peter Smith on Dec 15, 2010 6:16 am • link • report
My issue is that I see the same misuse of definitions by advocacy groups all the times. Example: AARP represents tens of millions of Americans b/c they're over whatever the AARP automatic membership age is; AAA represents every single car owner/driver b/c they represent anyone with a car; NRA represents every American that's ever owned, tried, or thought about a gun b/c they just do; Christine O'Donnell is each of us b/c she's not a witch; etc.
by Fritz on Dec 15, 2010 6:52 am • link • report
After a 350mi bike ride from NYC to BOS, I'll never get on a bike a again, I hate it. I'd still like to see dedicated bike/bus (maybe coincident) streets in the city because I think it's important for DC. However, the local bicycle lobby and it's unelected spokespeople will likely make me oppose their goals due to overreach. You really are just another whiny special interest group (in a city that specializes in them) trying to impose ridiculous requirements on OTHER people to get special treatment that maybe 10% of people will use regularly. 50% of people getting on a bike this year is not only BS, it ignores the fact that not even 5% of people will ever use bike commuting as a formal method of commuting. 95% of the people who get on a bike, go for a leisurely ride on a weekend morning to get out of the house. No one's building multi-million dollar infrastructure for a couple thousand people (on their best day) who want to bike to work.
We can argue all we want about why Portland has a model non-car transportation system, why Austin has a model local music scene, why Finance happens in NYC, and why tech innovation happens in San Jose, but trying to import 'cultures' without understanding the local one is arrogance and it will fall on it's face.
Like I say in the beginning, I support dedicated bike priority roads (painted stripes on car priority roads are stupid), but the special interest messaging is repulsive.
by John Doe on Dec 15, 2010 7:21 am • link • report
by KevinM on Dec 15, 2010 7:26 am • link • report
Sure the hard core rider will ride streets like K regardless. If you're like me, maybe you refer to K street during rush hour as five lanes in each direction, because of the gaps between lanes that are perfect for cycling in otherwise almost stopped traffic. And on this note, your and Peter's point that major thoroughfares should have bike facilities regardless is correct.
It's just that bike planning needs to focus as well on the not quite 60% of the population unwilling to cycle in uncomfortable, highly trafficked situations. Up to very recent times, it hasn't. That's the difference between European cities and U.S. cities, or between Montreal + the now developing cycletrack movement in the U.S.
WRT bicycle boulevards, I just don't know how I feel about them in DC. To me, streets like G and I NE, or 13th or 11th Street NW etc., are natural bicycle boulevards regardless of whether or not they have much in the way of special treatments. As Peter indicated, I favor making the streets two way over doing something special for bikes. (+ Peter note that I generally don't favor speed humps and the like, instead I would prefer that we go back to asphalt block, to provide visual, aural, and physical cues to slow down.)
The fundamental character of streets in the L'Enfant City especially but in the grid street network that exists beyond the L'Enfant city as well is already 3/4 of the way to "complete streets" or neighborhood greenways without doing anything special. (Although I agree with David Barth's point in park planning that streets should be treated as linear parks.)
Parking on both sides of the street means traffic is slow. The posted limits are 25mph. There are frequent stop signs/traffic signals further limiting speed of motor vehicles. There is great tree cover (usually), etc.
The kinds of bike boulevard treatments that are definitely needed in suburban places or Berkeley (I have never seen the Berkeley or Portland bike boulevards in person) I don't really feel are all that necessary in DC, although there are streets, primarily commuter routes (which in the Smart Transportation Guidebook framework, would be defined as regionally serving arterials), that need heightened complete streets treatments.
(FWIW, I promoted bike boulevards in Baltimore County, and tried to position them as merely a conceptual extension of the neighborhood traffic calming program already in place--a program that actually is quite good.)
Remember that technically, bike boulevards are for streets with about 2,500 ADT maximum, although if you look at the NACTO or IBPI materials, they don't specifically define the number, just saying "low volume and low speed."
by Richard Layman on Dec 15, 2010 9:06 am • link • report
I like the term "neighborhood greenway" better than "bike boulevard," since this emphasizes the multiple users of these roads. These low-traffic streets aren't just for bikes, and we should emphasize that fact to broaden the coalition in support of these kinds of improvements. When it's less about bikes and more about neighborhoods, then the battle is less cyclists vs. everyone else and more about neighbors working together.
Nothing to add, other than that this is *absolutely* correct. It's not about everyone against cyclists--it's about everyone against reckless drivers. When cars are dissuaded from treating residential roads as commuter raceways, *every* resident wins.
by oboe on Dec 15, 2010 9:31 am • link • report
If DC can build bikes lanes all over the city taking up space can someone tell me why can we not build bus lanes; which will benefit more of DC's population.
wrong on all counts. bus lanes are failures almost everywhere they're built. they're failures themselves, and the cause knock-on failures. and, unlike bike lanes, bus lanes take up a incredible amount of space -- they don't fit into the urban fabric. we have to do away with them. the best way to achieve this, imo, is to reduce and eventually remove the need for them, and we do this by providing high-quality walk and bike infrastructure first, and then providing rail transit. nobody has ever wanted to ride the bus -- people are forced to ride the bus -- that needs to end. forcing people to ride buses is dehumanizing -- nobody should be forced into such a situation.
I would actually rather take a bus than a rail so the part about nobody wants to ride the bus is invalid. I like buses stop more frequently than rail and I would rather have a shorter walk in the case you are talking about streetcars. If you are talking about metrorail I would rather take a bus because I cant stand being underground.
Rails can not go everywhere and never will it is impossible so there is a place for buses. Show me one city on earth that does not have bus transit.
Rail does not remove the need for a bus lane all it does it shift the bus traffic to rail with a track and that track will still need its own lane or in the case of a streetcar it will be in the same traffic and will be susceptible to any problems that occur on its tracks (accident, street blocked off etc) will cause the rail to stop whereas a bus could detour around the effected area.
Take when the area around the Convention Centre was blocked off if the streetcar was already placed the route would have been cut in half but a bus could have detoured around it.
Bus lanes are failures bus the city does not enforce them; if people got off their asses and enforced no cars/trucks in a bus lane they would work fine.
How does riding a bike fit into a urban environment where as bus lanes do not explain
Has there been any polls, surveys, tallies on how many DC residents actually use bikes to commute/shop around DC instead of just for fun ?
yes.
Where are they; can I see them can you point to a website or place where I can obtain these. Otherwise saying yes does not do anything.
I maybe see one person riding a bike a day vs many children/teens riding a bike around a block or two for fun.
that's because DC lacks appropriate bike facilities on its major thoroughfares, as i argued near the top of this monster comment. traffic-calmed neighborhoods are great for...walking and riding around in neighborhoods, but not much else -- we need the major thoroughfares to be make walk- and bike-friendly.
If there are bike lanes placed how do you know all will be used to effective level that makes the price to place them worth it.
Some parts of DC just aren't made for bike riding due to remoteness, geographic issues or the people there use other means (walk, car, transit) to get around.
Then there is another issue all people cant ride bikes where as people can walk or use a wheelchair. What about wheelchair lanes I'm willing to bet there are more people in wheelchairs than those who bike in DC
What should be done is investing more in sidewalks which are used by a hell of a lot larger segment of the population.
by kk on Dec 15, 2010 9:44 am • link • report
Ok, let's unpack this a bit. Folks like John Doe, and KevinM are making the argument that we're in danger of cyclist overreach: that the number of drivers who are also DC *voters* is so great that cyclists had better keep their heads down lest we risk offending The Driver Hegemon, and having our perks taken away.
But look at the list of driver-centric complaints: parking meters? Ain't exactly a core cyclist demand. But clearly it's got some constituency. Speed humps? Don't get me wrong, as a homeowner, I like the fact that these things are going up everywhere, and damaging the cars of scofflaw drivers I see. But it's certainly not a cyclist perk, or even something cyclists want.
To my thinking, if speed humps and parking-meter innovations are two of the three main boogeymen for DC drivers, you might want to look for an antagonist other than cyclists--like maybe, "everybody who isn't primarily a car-commuter."
Believe me, when speed humps were put up around Lincoln Park last a couple of years ago--and 1 in 3 passing vehicles were bottoming-out and throwing sparks everywhere--there were literally *cheers* from the folks out on the street. And I didn't see any of these cheering throngs on bicycles. And I'm sure more than a few owned cars.
(You see this on local neighborhood mailing lists, where someone writes complaining about "scofflaw cyclists" and is met with a half-dozen responses asking, basically, "Where are your priorities? We've got to get these motor vehicles under control!")
So it seems to me your position is not as popular as you imagine. If there's a backlash a-brewing against cyclists and biking, it's a backlash an order of magnitude smaller than the one that's already here against auto commuters.
by oboe on Dec 15, 2010 10:25 am • link • report
Some parts of DC just aren't made for walking due to remoteness, geographic issues or the people there use other means (bike, car, transit) to get around.
:P
by oboe on Dec 15, 2010 10:38 am • link • report
The problem is that the places where this obtains, such as Nicollet Ave. bus mall in Minneapolis, and especially the bus mall in Portland (although I haven't seen the newest iteration) they are either somewhat or really gross (Portland's bus mall was bad from an urban design and comfort standpoint).
But that being said, I do think we need a prioritized street bus network of dedicated lanes maybe, in the core of the city only, at least at this point. I just don't know where they should be. K Street and 14th Street definitely. Other streets, I just don't know.
Even on 7th and 9th Streets there hasn't been enough bus traffic to adequately use the theoretically dedicated bus lanes that are present there. That's why other cars feel free to drive in those lanes.
by Richard Layman on Dec 15, 2010 10:38 am • link • report
And that 1 bus can carry 20-40 people, so that's a lot of people moving.
by Michael Perkins on Dec 15, 2010 10:53 am • link • report
I would say people feel free to drive in the lanes on 7th street is because they are not enforced. I see people making turns at 7th and H everyday because it is not enforced.
If there was a police presence at the corner or somewhere along the street every for a month or two between 6am and 11pm and gave out tickets for every single person who got in the bus lane or turned on 7th & H the problems would stop.
People sneaking into HOV lanes all the time this is sort of the same situation; it doesnt matter if it is empty you are not supposed to be there nothing else matters.
People speed, talk on mobile phones, sneak into bus lanes/hov lanes all of the time this is done because you almost never get caught.
Many people wont do what is right such as following the law when considering traffic rules unless they are forced to or will get in trouble.
by kk on Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
If there was a police presence at the corner or somewhere along the street everyday for a month or two between 6am and 11pm who gave out tickets for every single person who got in the bus lane or turned on 7th & H the problems would stop.
People are sneaking into HOV lanes all the time this is sort of the same situation; it doesn't matter if it is empty you are not supposed to be there nothing else matters.
by kk on Dec 15, 2010 11:00 am • link • report
by Richard Layman on Dec 15, 2010 11:18 am • link • report
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report
It's not BS. It is a statistical fact. In some neighborhoods in DC the percentage of people who bike commute as their primary mode is as high as 7%. There are other people who only bike commute some times, but primarily use another method. Others still bike to a train or bus station and then ride the rest of the way. So the percentage of people who use bike commuting as a formal method of commuting is well above 7%. Driving in DC is only in the mid-30's so this isn't that big of a difference. A study by England's DOT determined that building out an ideal bike transport system would wind up with 40-50% of all trips being done by bicycle. I'm not sure what percentage of rides are for leisure, but I'm sure it is not as high as 95%.
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 12:41 pm • link • report
I would argue that this IS a civil rights.
It's quite a bit like the Gay Civil Rights. Clearly it's all about "special rights", not civil rights. After all, gay folks are explicitly fighting for the right to have their homosexual relationships endorsed by the state. Since we heterosexuals cannot even *have* homosexual relationships, clearly this is "special rights, not civil rights".
The same is true with cycling: how can access be a "civil right" when *I* don't even own a bike--in fact, have no interest in riding one?
The idea!
by oboe on Dec 15, 2010 12:43 pm • link • report
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report
And that's what we need to fix.
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report
From the motor vehicle operators who don’t know what a crosswalk is and what those painted lines mean to the motor vehicle operators who rage down residential street even if the light just turned red, the District of Columbia needs to be focused on its entire community.
One focus most beneficial would be to immediately implement quotas for traffic or moving infractions. Unsafely merging right after unlawful yield, failure to stop BEFORE those painted lines delineating a crosswalk, blocking intersections, etc, etc. But that would be an infringement of someone’s human rights.
So I guess the solutions posed in this article are the most viable alternatives in making our streets safer, cyclist, and pedestrian friendly.
by NE.HILL on Dec 15, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report
I note that you didn't dispute my point that the reason for such a broad definition is for the political advocacy talking point about the gazillions of bicyclists out there that will enjoy the bike lanes, the bike parking spaces, etc.
by Fritz on Dec 15, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report
I note that you didn't dispute my point that the reason for such a broad definition is for the political advocacy talking point about the gazillions of bicyclists out there that will enjoy the bike lanes, the bike parking spaces, etc. That is correct, but you're mistaken if you read that as a concession of the point. It is more a statement of boredom. I don't really see a point in arguing with you. I see that you didn't answer my question about how many times you have to bike to be a cyclist. But it doesn't seem that you've conceded that point.
But, what the hey, I'm waiting on a phone call, so let's waste some time.
The reason for such a broad definition is to contradict your incredibly narrow one. You would like to define "cyclist" as only those who bike to work as their primary means of travel. That's a pretty narrow definition. It doesn't count people who bike to places other than work. It doesn't count people who bike to the metro and then take that to work. It doesn't count people who bike to work only on nice weather days. It doesn't count people who ride only to the farmer's market once a week. It doesn't count people who go on rides 15 weekend days a year, and who take city roads to get the trail of their choice. It doesn't count people who bike to school. It doesn't count people who bike for exercise. It doesn't count people who train for racing. It doesn't count people who are going mountain bike riding. It doesn't count people who only bike for the two weeks they're on vacation at Rehobeth. Your stat only counts a small sliver of cyclists. The reason for my broad definition is that I would like to count all cyclists. And all of these people are cyclists.
Furthermore, you're making what my Materials Science professor called THE great science mistake. You're measuring the wrong thing. The right thing to measure is who WANTS to bike, not who DOES. Because there are a lot of people who WANT to bike to work but don't because they think it is unsafe, or there are physical barriers, or they don't have a shower, or they have nowhere to store their bike. According to a DDOT survey done back in 2004, 65% of people in DC expressed interest in biking to work if some of these issues were addressed. So when we talk about adding facilities and - rarely, but occasionally - taking space from cars to do so, we're talking about addressing the desires of a majority of city residents. These people may or may not be cyclists, but they want to be. They don't want to be in their car or on Metro but they feel they have to be. Isn't addressing a problem like that exactly the kind of thing we want DDOT to deal with?
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 4:52 pm • link • report
Throw around all of the stats you want- how about you open your eyes! You say "some neighborhoods" have a whopping 7% of bike commuters? Well, many neighborhoods have zero percent bike commuters, like mine near Capitol Hill in N.E. Not sure where you get "mid 30's as a percentage of drivers, but even if so, that makes driving over 400% more than biking, if my math is correct. Not that big a difference? Get real! Yet you're sure that pleasure riding is not 95% of biking- I wonder what you might be smoking??? Bottom line is 7%(if that much) is not significant in my view, not enough to warrant all of this fuss with bike lanes and rental kiosks, to the detriment of smooth motor vehicular traffic on our city streets. You say the trend is toward cycling and I say- in your dreams. You'll only be in shape to ride your bike everywhere for a few years, then life will happen to you- you'll get bad knees, bad back, and such and you'll come around to "the dark side"- cars that is. You didn't know? You better ask somebody!
by KevinM on Dec 15, 2010 6:07 pm • link • report
I live in NE, just north of CapHill and I bike to work. Including this morning.
by anon on Dec 15, 2010 6:31 pm • link • report
My office in Arlington has 147 employees. There is a gym with a shower on the ground floor. We have only one employee who bikes to work and she only does so 5 months a year on days it isn't forecasted to rain. We have 2 people who walk to work. 12 who take transit everyday. Despite being 3 blocks from metro in an urban setting 90% of our employees drive solo or their spouse/partner drops them off on the way to their job.
by Jason on Dec 15, 2010 6:36 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 15, 2010 6:45 pm • link • report
By defining such a massive number of people as bicyclists, you're simply employing the usual advocacy trick of going with as large a number of "affected" people as possible so as to appear way, way larger to politicians.
While the casual cyclist like me may take pleasure rides, the bike lanes clearly were not designed for me. They were designed as commuting paths, hence their locations. Which is why I understand your desire to move as far away from the (generously approximation) 4% of commuters who bike, and go with even more fantastical stats like the DDOT 65% number.
And what's your thought on the fact that a Tommy the Taxer law that will require private property owners to provide bike parking spaces on multi-unit residentual buildings and just about every commercial building, or else face fines (Tommy the Taxer had said on TBD.com that he supported a $1,000 fine for violations!)?
We're now beyond spending taxpayer dollars on little-used bike lanes and have now moved to requiring private property owners to fork over their own money for bike parking spaces or else face hefty fines.
You really think there's not going to be a backlash? If so, then I need that Kool-Aid recipe.
by Fritz on Dec 15, 2010 7:07 pm • link • report
yes, it does, actually -- it says "yes, these numbers exist, so open up a browser tab and go to google.com and go find them."
here's what i found after searching for 30 seconds.
but, i am curious about your line of questioning. is one type of trip more important than another type of trip?
for instance, is a trip to the doctor's office more important than a trip to work? how about a trip to a local restaurant or grocery store? or a trip to speak with your child's schoolteacher? and are any of these trips more important than a trip to go visit a friend? should 'commute trips' just include work and full-time-school trips in the definition of 'commute', or should that definition be more inclusive? and does it matter anyways?
if you decide that some trip purposes are more important than some other trip purposes, how would you decide to implement a public policy that would enforce your Trip Importance Ratings? would there be Stop-And-Interrogate checkpoints placed on various roads around town that would stop all drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, and try to determine their points of destination(s) and/or the purpose(s) of their trips, and then turn them around, or fine or jail them appropriately?
all of this is an absurdity, of course, for myriad reasons. so, the answer? simple. Allow people to get around under their own power -- probably walking and biking, but however they see fit.
these forms of transport -- walking and biking -- are so incredibly space-, energy-, and cost-efficient compared to the others that we should just work to prioritize these forms of transport over all others, and then deal with any congestion issues as the pop up, and they will. as they pop up, we just continue giving more and more of the available street space over to these efficient forms of transport. if we hit congestion after that, and we will, then we'll have to talk redesign, land use, etc., but the answer for us for the next 20 years is as simple and obvious as it is cost-effective, human- and community- and planet-friendly -- prioritize walking and biking by installing the appropriate physical/legal/ethical/social infrastructure. done and done.
when we're talking trip generation, some cities like SF are talking about using automobile trip generation (ATG) instead of auto level of service (LOS). Implicit in this would-be arrangement is that only motorized trips are damaging to the city, particularly automobile trips. Adopting ATG instead of LOS would flip current planning models on their heads -- instead of the city worrying about how it impacts cars, cars would have to worry about how they're impacting the city.
People should be able to walk and bike in safety, comfort, convenience, and with dignity intact. Practically-speaking, this means we need to prioritize walking and biking over all forms of motorized transport, in that order. So we'll need very high quality sidewalks and walking environments, and very high quality bikeways and biking environments, generally.
after we've accomplished this, then we can talk about...well just about anything else that we might deem pressing in the DC transportation world. But once DC has achieved a status of 'being sweet to walkers and bikers', then all other transportation-related problems will likely become much more muted -- even dull or outright boring -- because so few people will actually be dependent on the government for allowing them to move around. But don't worry -- we can always argue about the height limit!
:-D
by Peter Smith on Dec 15, 2010 8:31 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Dec 15, 2010 9:58 pm • link • report
Not sure where you get "mid 30's as a percentage of drivers, but even if so, that makes driving over 400% more than biking, if my math is correct. From the Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey: 36.5% of Commuters in DC drive to work alone. Your math is roughly correct, even if your English isn't. 400% more WHAT than biking? There are 16.5 people driving alone for every cyclist. Which I think is quite good. But this isn't a contest to see whose is bigger. The point is that many people want to bike to work but can't. Should DDOT accomodate them or ignore them?
Yet you're sure that pleasure riding is not 95% of biking- I wonder what you might be smoking??? Smoking? Nothing. Reading? This, which shows that for DC Area cyclists, the most common trip is to school or work. Recreation and touring comes second. Utility is third.
Bottom line is 7%(if that much) is not significant in my view Really? How would you feel about a 7% pay cut?
not enough to warrant all of this fuss with bike lanes and rental kiosks, to the detriment of smooth motor vehicular traffic on our city streets. There has never been smooth motor vehicular traffic on our city streets and without a congestion charge, there won't be. But the Capital Crescent Trail moves pretty smoothly.
You say the trend is toward cycling and I say- in your dreams.
Really? I repeat, really
You'll only be in shape to ride your bike everywhere for a few years, then life will happen to you- you'll get bad knees, bad back, and such and you'll come around to "the dark side"- cars that is People in Amstredam bike right up into their 80's. Riding a bike is a lifelong activity.
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 11:06 pm • link • report
Fritz, While the casual cyclist like me may take pleasure rides, the bike lanes clearly were not designed for me. Actually, they were.
They were designed as commuting paths, hence their locations. How do their locations make them just for commuting? Are those streets just for commuting? Do we close them outside of rush hour? That's ridiculous.
The reason I want to move away from the number who bike commute as a primary mode to people who bike commute even some time as well as those who bike for utility and - yes - those who bike for recreation and finally those who don't bike but want to is because all of those people will use bike lanes. We don't make changes for the people who already bike, we make them for those who will.
Are you telling me that the only people in bike lanes are going to and from work? Because that's what your saying. And it is either insane or disingenuous.
And what's your thought on the fact that a Tommy the Taxer law that will require private property owners to provide bike parking spaces on multi-unit residentual buildings and just about every commercial building, or else face fines we require private property owners to provide car parking (and many other things). Why not bike parking? Especially since we want people to bike and don't want them to drive.
I think it's a great idea and will do much to enable people to bike for transportation or leisure, as they have both said and shown they want to.
by David C on Dec 15, 2010 11:18 pm • link • report
I am a transit advocate, however I am not drunk on the elixir of bicycling like some people on this site. In fact, in my view cycling has only a minor part to play in urban mass transit- again, that's my view.
@ anon-
You obviously don't live in my neighborhood near Capitol Hill, and even if you do happen to live near me, that makes you one of less than a handful of bike commuters, which was my point- there are so few in my neck of the woods as to be insignificant.
@ David C-
More than 16 people driving alone for every cyclist- you're making my point for me! Good thing you don't decide whether or not I get a raise or a pay cut at my job, but if I did have to take a 7% cut to keep my job, well, as the saying goes- ain't a whole lot to that! I'd take it and be happy to still have a job in this economy. But that's neither here nor there- when you woke up this morning you were in the good old U.S. of A. and not Amsterdam; we are different people here, and the truth is, we are a car culture, not a bike culture. I suspect that pains you and you can't seem to admit it, but denial is a river in Egypt. I stand by my prediction that when you get older you will not be the cycling enthusiast that you may be now, and even if you continue to enjoy a leisurely ride every now and then, they'll have to drag you out of your car kicking and screaming when you start to lose your ability to drive safely. As I ride the buses and drive my car around town I don't see any 70 or 80 year old people riding bikes, and I suspect there are not very many; I do, however, see a ton of elderly drivers. Come down off that cloud you're on, back away from the spliff, clear your head and recognize that biking as the wave of the future in THIS country- it ain't necessarily so!
by KevinM on Dec 16, 2010 8:30 am • link • report
BTW, denial is not a river in Egypt; the Nile is. That joke, as hack as it is, is better when spoken than written.
I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to clear my head. Unlike yours, my opinions are based on fact, instead of a bunch of stuff I just made up and continue to believe even after I'm shown it's wrong.
by David C on Dec 16, 2010 9:23 am • link • report
Well, many neighborhoods have zero percent bike commuters, like mine near Capitol Hill in N.E.
Vive la Anectdata!
Meanwhile, it's 9:30 am, snow is predicted, it's 25 degrees, and the CaBi station at Lincoln Park has exactly *one* available bike out of 13 empty racks. the station at 13th and D NE has two available bikes out of thirteen.
Good thing there's no demand for these things...
is regularly empty before noon.
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 9:32 am • link • report
In fact, I put the challenge out to this list to identify the most bike-hostile road in DC.
I see a lot of people riding bikes on the hill. They take up so little space and make so little noise that it is easy to overlook them, when compared to cars.
by goldfish on Dec 16, 2010 9:33 am • link • report
Even your precious Census data show that only 14% of area commuters use public transportation, since you love the stats/facts. You flatter yourself- you haven't shown me to be wrong about anything. I certainly didn't make up the census stats, I just showed you that stats can be inserted into a debate to make any point you want to make. It doesn't help your case to make a big deal about my attempt at putting some humor in the discourse, whether or not it translates well into writing as opposed to in person- I'm sure you got my point regardless.
@ oboe-
I'd venture a guess that all of the downtown parking lots are just as full as they are on any other week day, and rush hour will be just as packed as it usually is, so what's your point?! There is indeed a small group of enthusiasts that patronize the bike rentals, but it is not, contrary to the opinions of some on this site, ready to become the new main thing in urban transportation. See above stats/facts for the proof- don't take my word for it...
by KevinM on Dec 16, 2010 9:52 am • link • report
I think there is a failure here to recognize that there needs to be an effort to make it easy to take whatever mode you choose. Gabe Klein said that multiple times when talking about what he was trying to do as DDOT head. It hasn't been easy to use a bicycle to commute. We're getting closer to parity on that. Unfortunately, we can't make it easier to drive by building freeways everywhere. But if we get more cars off the road, those of you who still choose to drive will have it easier, since there will be less cars to compete with. How is that a bad thing?
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 16, 2010 9:58 am • link • report
I certainly disagree with your characterization of me as hostile, but you call it like you see it. In fact there is nothing wrong with a mode of transportation that serves 5% of the traveling public- my point is that we should not make that 5% out to be the new wave of the future when, in my view at least, this is a niche mode that will have it's run amongst a younger demographic and then peter out as that demographic gets older. Here's an observation for you- this latest wave, if you will, of bicycle enthusiasts don't even seem interested enough to buy their own bikes. What's up with that?
You state the obvious- we can't make it easier to drive by building freeways everywhere, however, we also can't make it easier to drive by making cars share roadways with bicycles as if they are equal. Motor vehicles are the kings of the roads, and that is an inescapable fact which is not on the verge of changing anytime soon.
by KevinM on Dec 16, 2010 10:54 am • link • report
I assume you're referring to Capital Bikeshare with the "don't even seem interested enough to buy their own bikes" comment.
If so, let me ask you this:
If, for $75 a year, it was possible for someone to walk less than 10 blocks anywhere in the city and use a car for free for up to 30 minutes, no insurance required, no capital cost to buy a new car, do you think that would encourage more people to drive? Do you think it would decrease overall car ownership?
by Matt Johnson on Dec 16, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
Well, at least we're all in agreement that your assertion that "zero percent of Capitiol Hill residents bike commute" is horse-hockey. I'm not quite sure when you're going to get the point that David C keeps hammering you with: it's not the number of current cyclists--it's the potential cyclists who could be served.
To take it a step further: you understand that having a greater share of trips taken by bike will make for easier driving conditions for the ailing 80 year olds who have no choice than to drive, right?
It's the same principal as we see with Metro: if every regular Metro rider decided--on one day--to drive in their cars, it would make the congestion during a blizzard commute look like a warm Christmas morning.
The main difference between the WMATA transit, versus bike infrastructure is that there's practically zero investment needed. So you're getting folks out of *your* way for free.
Is that really so hard to comprehend?
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 10:59 am • link • report
And for the record, I didn't call you hostile. I mentioned "hostility," which is how I perceive your writing style. Writing style ≠ person.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 16, 2010 11:05 am • link • report
You have two misconceptions: first, while young people get older, kids become young people, babies become kids, and gametes become babies. Unless you're privy to some sort impending "Children of Men" scenario, that's a red herring.
As far as cyclists not interested in buying bikes, I think you're just grasping at this point.
You state the obvious- we can't make it easier to drive by building freeways everywhere, however, we also can't make it easier to drive by making cars share roadways with bicycles as if they are equal. Motor vehicles are the kings of the roads, and that is an inescapable fact which is not on the verge of changing anytime soon.
Funny, whenever I ride my bike across town, inevitably I get there faster than I would if I drove--and parking's free. So--while I think you're just indulging in some chest-thumping here--I guess it's subjective who is the "King of the Road."
:)
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 11:06 am • link • report
Even your precious Census data show that only 14% of area commuters use public transportation, since you love the stats/facts ...
But that's completely irrelevant to DC proper, where DC residents use transit to commute to work at a rate of 37.1%. Walking is 11.11% and biking 2.17%. Remember that is primary, so each of these modes could combine other modes in a secondary fashion.
WRT commuting and public transit, regarding DC specifically, would be the number of people commuting to the central business district, and how they do so. I don't know what those numbers are, but I will check in with the downtown bid and see what data they might have. I presume that the rate of commuting by transit is quite high.
I haven't been able to find the commuting to DC data set from the other counties. Obviously, people closer in are more likely to use sustainable transportation modes, although this is likely bimodal too, as some far out commuters use vanpools or railroad passenger services.
Using overall regional data to talk about DC, when the county data is abysmal as far as public transit use is concerned (except for Arlington and to some extent Alexandria and Montgomery County along the red line) is an intellectually flawed approach of the highest order.
WRT the general discussion about biking, this came up in themail, when someone asked "what is the natural threshhold" to expect for biking for commuting and for other trips.
I said based on best practice elsewhere, maybe 15% for commuting, depending on distance to work, and with regard to trips generally, at least 50% (combination walking and biking) since 1/2 of total household trips are 3 miles or less.
Frankly, I think there is a lot of opportunity to capture by biking trips between 3 and 5 miles, especially regular trips to work or school. (6% of total trips are between 3-4 miles and 7% of total trips are between 4-5 miles).
So theoretically up to 63% of total trips are capturable by bicycle, although since 28% of trips are 1 mile or less, a goodly number of those trips could be captured by walking.
http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/01/national-household-travel-survey-short-trips-analysis/
http://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/bikeleague/2000-to-2009-all-modes-2
To get to these numbers, you need hard and soft infrastructure (programming) of great depth and breadth. But they are not out of the question... (even though I wimped out and took the Metro back last night from Capitol Hill after a post meeting party, riding at home the night before from another meeting, with bike-wind aided chill at about zero degrees was still a bad memory).
It requires setting goals and building the programming and infrastructure to achieve them.
by Richard Layman on Dec 16, 2010 11:36 am • link • report
I never asserted that zero percent of Capitol Hill residents bike commute. Get it straight- what I said was in reference to my immediate neighborhood, near Capitol Hill in N.E. It is not, as you say, horse hockey(be careful- I used a similar euphemism previously and got taken to the woodshed by the moderators, as if I had actually referred to someone as that byproduct as opposed to talking about the argument being made), but the absolute truth; none of my neighbors use bicycles to commute.
Further-
I can only say you must be a lousy driver or an irresponsible bike rider if you can get across town faster biking than driving. I'll guess that perhaps you don't stop at stop signs and traffic lights on your bike(maybe it's not yours but rented), otherwise you're blowing smoke, talking about faster travel by bicycle...
@ Matt Johnson-
You wrote- "If, for $75 a year, it was possible for someone to walk less than 10 blocks anywhere in the city and use a car for free for up to 30 minutes, no insurance required, no capital cost to buy a new car, do you think that would encourage more people to drive? Do you think it would decrease overall car ownership?"
That's ridiculous, and not realistic. I think few people get in their cars to go somewhere and complete the trip in 30 minutes, and insurance would surely be required. Also, $75 seems awful low for such a program(with cars not bikes).
by KevinM on Dec 16, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report
Your point was that no one even feels the need to buy a bike anymore, hence CaBi. That is false. Many CaBi users do, in fact, own a bike.
But for $75 a year, they have access to a bike. And that means that even if you don't own a bike or don't have it with you, a bike suddenly becomes an option. Metro shenanigans have the Red Line closed downtown? Hop on a CaBi.
So it's likely to increase the bike mode share, since the price of entry is so much lower. You know, if I had access to a car that I didn't have to buy or insure and could drop off anywhere in the city, I'd probably drive a lot more.
By the way, ZipCar does not require you to have insurance, so I don't think it would "surely" be required. And yes, $75 does seem low. The point was to talk about CaBi, which is what it costs.
by Matt Johnson on Dec 16, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report
Well, many neighborhoods have zero percent bike commuters, like mine near Capitol Hill in N.E.
Fair enough. When you said, "neighborhood", I thought you meant the generally accepted term, not "my street". In any case, at least three people on my street (or "neighborhood") regularly commute by bicycle. Not sure how close we live, perhaps our neighborhoods are neighbors.
As far as "getting across town", it took me 25 minutes to go from around 14th and D, NE to the 2000 block of L Street NW during the height of rush hour. That's door-to-door. No way I would've made that trip in less time *door-to-door* driving (factoring in parking, etc...)
I did roll through a few stops signs, but mostly I waited for the red lights, though. Oh, and no, I did not wear a helmet. Break out the fainting couch! :)
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report
Just to echo Matt's point: I've own three bikes--and have a CaBi membership. My neighbor has no bike--he has a CaBi membership. Most of the folks I know who ride for sport (one of whom is an ex-racer and owns something like 15 bikes) have CaBi memberships.
I think the groups "Cabi Members" and "Bike Owners" are almost orthogonal to one another (Hopefully "almost orthogonal" isn't like saying "pretty unique").
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 12:30 pm • link • report
Bottom line is 7%(if that much) is not significant in my view, not enough to warrant all of this fuss with bike lanes and rental kiosks, to the detriment of smooth motor vehicular traffic on our city streets.
As someone pointed out, there are 50 miles of bike lane on 3500 miles of road. The bike lanes take up only part of the road, so cyclists are getting less than 1% of the road despite being 2-7% of the traffic, depending on how you count it. It seems you think that being 2% of the traffic means you get 0% of the space and 0% of the money.
Also, how do the rental kiosks deter smooth motor vehicular traffic?
by David C on Dec 16, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report
I can only think of a couple neighborhoods that are near Capitol Hill and also in Northeast. Those would be Kingman Park/Rosedale, Trinidad, Carver Langston, NoMa, and Eckington (if you want to stretch things).
I know people in each of those neighborhoods who bike to work. So either our anecdotal understanding of this city completely negate each other, and everything we say is like a proton and an antiproton, or you are referencing a neighborhood that none of us are familiar with.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 16, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
To the west, L St. is the end of the sidewalk portion of MBT, and is an easy cut-through under the railroad tracks. With a little attention when we cover 395, it could connect large chunks of the area on both sides of North Capitol St.
I tend not to ride past 8th St, where L makes a perfect connection into Gallaudet (where they're trying to get one of the next round of CaBi stations sited).
But just looking at the map, the route could hook briefly from the end of L St. onto West Virginia, and then immediately onto Neal St., with a good crossing at Bladensburg, back onto H St., and hopefully through the high school grounds right onto the ART (including passage under Benning Rd).
Bike facilities on major thoroughfares are great when feasible. But I'll be perfectly happy riding on quiet residential streets with bike-boulevard / pedestrian-centered amenities, as long as there is serious planning and serious signage for through traffic, plus the right connections to other major bike routes.
by Shalom on Dec 16, 2010 11:05 pm • link • report
i might be ok with a statement that was more like "Bike facilities of type 'X' on major thoroughfares of type 'Y' are not feasible at this moment in time because...it's 3 AM in the morning and everyone is sleeping right now and we can't start fixing these thoroughfares until 8 AM when everyone gets to work" -- but other than that, I just can't buy the sentiment that it's not feasible to fix certain roads.
Walk and bike facilities are not luxuries -- they are necessities of modern city life, so they must be constructed/appropriated, and for various reasons they will probably _have_ to be constructed/appropriated on existing major thoroughfares -- so that's probably what is going to happen. The only question that remains is whether existing major thoroughfares will be fixed, or whether we'll build a completely new set of major thoroughfares that actually work for most people/the city.
my argument, then, is that making a road safe/comfortable/convenient/dignified for bikers is almost always feasible (with very rare exceptions -- like pedestrian-only streets).
but, for the sake of argument, I'm curious what anyone might think makes infeasible the construction of bike facilities on a road/street/freeway/whatever? is there some objective or subjective criteria that we should be using to determine where that point is? like, if a street is an 8+ on the 'Traffic Sewer (10-Point) Scale', then it shouldn't get bike facilities? or, maybe certain types of facilities, like freeways or bridges or vicious one-ways should just be ruled 'off-limits' for some reason?
for instance, some folks seem to think that the K Street Busway should not have bikes on it, and that the H Street Railway should not have bikes on it, but is there an actual reason to ban bikes from these roads other than just 'because we can'?
i'd argue that it's feasible to provide bicycle facilities on almost every single street/road/avenue/boulevard/highway/freeway/bridge/tunnel in and around DC. in fact, the only exceptions i could think of are maybe very small/tiny/pedestrian-packed alleys/streets/paths that are not conducive to _any_ object moving at more than 3 mph. other than that, what would be our excuse?
if you want to allow people to ride their bikes, you gotta let them ride on the major thoroughfares -- there's really no other way around it that i can think of. maybe inexpensive-to-free personal, Jetsons-like perpetual-motion/free-energy-type jet packs become widely available, obviating the need for bikes?
the most extreme examples of roads that are/were 'not feasible' for allowing bike traffic are/were probably some of the highways that have been torn-down in various parts of the country -- like out here in SF. if you can't fix an existing road in-place, then maybe you just need to tear it up/down and start from scratch. why not? the new SF Embarcadero is still not very bikable, but at least now it's possible for about 1% of the population to bike, and that's a start. New Orleans hit the news recently for talking highway tear-down. There's a whole list of them that people want torn down and retrofitted for humans, including bikers. people want to do away with the Sheridan Expressway in NYC, too -- if it doesn't fit, you must get rid of...it. :-D
a slightly-less major redesign was the partial tear-down of the SF Central Freeway, which was replaced with a still-fairly-anti-human boulevard -- but it was still a major improvement, and is now bikable for at least a few San Franciscans.
and you could go on down the list to every single street and road in America. even for very small projects in DC, there will often be a substantial, even sometimes a majority of people, who will say, "No -- not feasible -- we cannot possibly make room for walkers and/or bikers on this road" -- we see it, read it, and hear it all the time -- but does that mean it makes any sense? Chances are, no.
Whether you're talking about replacing a freeway with a human-scale street, or just simply painting sharrows on an existing cars-only right-of-way, there will people who object with the 'not feasible' phrase. But their objections are not well-founded, as we've seen. People require and deserve the ability to walk and bike around DC on her major thoroughfares, period.
there will always be people who claim that making a particular street/road/passage for human-powered transport is 'not feasible', but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. we may have to do some prioritizing, but nothing should be off the table at this point -- every single street/road/bridge/highway/freeway/tunnel/bus line/train line/bike lane/sidewalk needs to justify its existence, and if it can't, it needs to be fixed and/or taken back and utilized more fully/efficiently/wisely/cost-effectively.
history is filled with tasks that were accomplished after they were deemed 'not feasible' by someone or some group of people, even a majority of people. we shouldn't be deterred.
by Peter Smith on Dec 17, 2010 12:41 am • link • report
1. Unfortunately, I had the idea two weeks before the end of my contract in Baltimore County, but I came up with a concept I called "Signature Streets" which marries complete streets and smart growth concepts for a situation in a county where unlike DC, you have to buy right of way for road extension and expansion.
What I argued is that certain streets, such as Old Court Road, Rolling Road, Seminary Road, etc., are key connections and deserve heightened/upgraded treatment including bike and pedestrian accommodations, enhanced streetscape, etc., and that the County should bit the bullet and commit to the spending to make it happen (bond funding, etc.), making over these streets in a signature manner that defines robust mobility for the 21st century.
I thought this was a way to define the roads in a manner that the elected officials and the people in DPW and citizens could understand. Positioning is really important because the amount of money required to do such a treatment is considerable.
Unfortunately, I didn't have enough time to develop and refine the concept.
2. WRT bridges, LAB has a bridge initiative:
http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/12/join-the-bikes-on-bridges-conference-call-today/
and a report which was just released
Note that I raised this issue too in Baltimore County/State of Maryland. SHA does a better job with bridge access for pedestrians and bicyclists in the DC area than in the Baltimore area.
by Richard Layman on Dec 17, 2010 7:49 am • link • report
http://www.parkpride.org/get-involved/events/conference/content/downloads/13-m-ghg-barthperez.pdf
by Richard Layman on Dec 17, 2010 7:51 am • link • report
As for traffic calming, it irritates me that I should have to slow down even further to negotiate roundabouts and speed bumps when it's motor vehicles, not my bicycle, that are the problem. I go at 10mph silently - I don't need 'calming'.
by Ian Cooper on Sep 13, 2011 1:49 am • link • report
Add a Comment