Posts about 11th Street Bridges

"Active recreation," like a climbing wall, zip line, and many activities for kids could improve health in a part of the city where many kids are not as healthy as they should be. Autumn Saxton-Ross from the Department of Health said that having spaces for play creates "whole children who develop into whole adults."

The bridge could contain community gardens that grow food, a place for food trucks to hold festivals like Truckeroo, or even trees; an avid community gardener who lives in the area emphasized that last one, as it gets quite hot in the summer and a bridge is exposed to the elements.

Then there is the streetcar. Problems between DDOT and the US Department of Transportation scuttled tracks on the new local bridge now under construction, at least for now, but perhaps that would open up a new opportunity to put the tracks on this "recreation bridge."

Making this bridge succeed might not be easy. A bridge is a very big space; this one is over 1000 feet long. It's in the middle of the river, and connects 2 neighborhoods of only moderate density. Even from them, there's a substantial walk to reach to the bridge itself.

Therefore, any use will have to attract people who are deliberately going to the bridge as a destination, rather than people just wandering by or popping over between work and dinner. It will need to have enough different activities to keep the bridge busy most of the day, every day, lest it turn into a dead space or a haven for crime.

Or maybe there is a way to mix active uses with people who are just passing through? If the streetcar traverses this bridge, and stops a few times along the way, it could make the bridge be more of a continuous connector between Capitol Hill and Anacostia. The bridge could get a cafe or two. It would create "eyes on the street" (or bridge), draw the bridge much closer to surrounding neighborhoods, and bring potential users of the bridge's activities passing right by every day.

The bridge would also get closer to surrounding areas if the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail could remain open more of the time. The Navy Yard now allows people to walk and bike past the base during the day every day, which is more than they initially promised. But can it be open all of the time?

A representative from DMPED was optimistic. He said that the Navy Yard now actually finds it somewhat of a burden to open and close the trail every day, and would like to avoid that responsibility. They've also added more security along that edge of the yard, making them more comfortable just allowing public access along that side. He gave no firm details, but it sounds like residents can hope for a 24-hour trail in the future.

As for the bridge, DDOT already gave out a contract to demolish the 2 old bridges. Tregoning said that while DC could try to renegotiate and keep the existing bridge structure, it's in very bad shape. Instead, they will just keep the piers, since those are very expensive to plant in the river, and remove the entire deck.

Another benefit of removing the deck is that a new one needn't be a simple rectangle. Maybe it will take a different shape. It could be thinner, or wider, or some of each in different places. Maybe it can connect in a few places to the new local road, bike, and pedestrian bridge that's being built right next to it.

OP is hoping to start a national design competition this summer, to find the most creative designs from anyone, anywhere.

The bridge project will probably cost around $25-35 million. That's only a tenth of the cost of the highway bridge project, but it's not pocket change, and DC has many other priorities as well. For this reason, they hope to attract private money, either from local organizations or national foundations. For a project which could become an icon for DC, many may be quite interested.

Getting the streetcar onto the bridge would take some creative thinking, too. The new bridges are using some of the space that's now approach ramps to the old bridge. That means there won't necessarily be a smooth and direct approach to the "recreation bridge" on each side. We'll have to wait for a later design phase to find out if there's even a way to get a streetcar on and off the bridge.

The residents in the room were overall either very eager at least open-minded. Some seemed to primarily come to the meeting to ensure that the vehicular bridge was going to open on time and that nothing was changing with that plan. Others were bursting with ideas.

Right now, this project largely seems to be taking advantage of an opportunity. I can imagine Tregoning sitting in a meeting, hearing a status update about the bridge, and suddenly saying, "Wait a minute! We have this bridge over the Anacostia and we're just going to rip it out? When the District is so concerned with figuratively bridging east and west of the river and there are so many needs especially on the east side?"

So far, all the government proposes to do is essentially preserve a bunch of piers to make it far cheaper to build a recreational bridge. Whether something ever gets built is up to residents, leaders, and designers to figure out a way to make it a great public space worthy of the investment.

It's an interesting idea, and definitely worth exploring, but it's also going to be difficult to pull off successfully. If the city simply plops a couple of rock climbing walls on the old asphalt, the new park will be a failure.

The problem is that there is no built-in user base. The bridge is difficult to access from nearby neighborhoods, so it won't likely get many casual walk-through users. Most of the nearby neighborhoods also aren't very dense.

Instead, the park would rely on people who specifically go there as a destination. That means it will have to offer specific reasons for people to visit. If there aren't enough reasons, the park will remain mostly empty. The bridge is also long, meaning there's a lot of space to fill.

So the park will need an anchor, or several anchors. And it will need transportation facilities to accommodate users, since there won't be enough walkers to populate it fully.

If the District wants to fill the long span of 11th Street Bridge with enough people to give it a lively and safe feeling, it will need to do more:

Program it heavily. The more stuff there is in the park, the more reason people will have to visit. So fill the thing up with activities. Attach a boat house, put in a mini golf course, whatever. Give people a reason to travel across the city and come to this place.

Make it mixed use. Putting large office or residential buildings on the bridge is probably not realistic, but there is no reason why it shouldn't include some small shops and food stands. And for goodness sake, keep them open. That perpetually closed pavilion at Pershing Park isn't doing anyone any favors.

Be inclusive. Provide space for food trucks, sidewalk vendors, street artists, performers, anybody. Let them in, and let them sell. This is actually one advantage this park has over nearby space in Anacostia Park: The National Park Service controls that, and prohibits any vending, but a city bridge-turned-park wouldn't suffer under the same restrictions.

Don't cheap out on landscaping. Nobody wants to visit a concrete expanse. Obviously the range of plantings available on a hard surface with no soil is somewhat limited, but go to the expense and trouble of doing as much as you can.

Provide transportation. People will need a means of getting to this park. There must be parking for cars and bikes (on-street is fine), bike sharing, and the streetcar should actually stop in the center of the bridge.

With enough planning and strong management, this idea could be a winner. Without, it will fail, and will ultimately be abandoned.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

In August 1814, with British troops descending on Washington's federal core, local citizens burned the Eastern Branch Bridge (the Anacostia River was then known as the Eastern Branch of the Potomac) to imperil their advance.

On the night of Good Friday, April 14, 1865 John Wilkes Booth made his escape over the Navy Yard Bridge, through Uniontown (now Historic Anacostia), to southern Maryland after shooting President Lincoln at Ford's Theatre.

Today, as part of a massive public works project, a new 11th Street Bridge is on the cusp of reopening.

Anacostia today. Photo by the author.

In late 2008, DDOT submitted a request to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to de-designate I-295 north of the Anacostia side of the 11th Street Bridge, and to extend I-695 across the 11th Street Bridge to meet I-295 and DC Route 295. DDOT said the purpose was to "rationalize the freeway system in the District."

Image from DDOT.

But people are asking, if I-695 has existed all these years along the Southeast Freeway, why hasn't it been signed?

Not even DDOT knows for sure, but one possible reason is that it was intended to go farther.

I-695 South Leg proposal, from 1970 study.

This image, from a 1970 study, shows one of the alternatives for an extension of I-695 as part of the DC Interstate system. Dating in some form back to the mid-1950s, I-695 would have continued west from the 3rd Street Tunnel, diverged from the Southwest Freeway at Maine Ave, and continued northwesterly to meet I-66 at Constitution Ave NW. The ramp configurations at I-395/Maine Ave SW and at I-66/Constitution Ave NW are remnants of this long-ago plan, officially killed by then-mayor Marion Barry in 1980.

This segment might have been partially signed before it was cancelled. There's an empty space on the sign bridge on westbound I-66 just north of the E Street Expressway that might have housed an I-695 sign, and an associate of mine has reported that he recalls an I-695 sign on the inbound Theodore Roosevelt Bridge back in the 1970s. Any such signage has long since disappeared, however.

1971-proposed Inner Loop freeway system.

This map, from the 1971 DC Interstate System study by DeLeuw, Cather & Associates, shows how the longer I-695 would have fit into the context of the freeway system proposed for the DC core. As it connected I-66 with I-295 around the south side of the core, it would have been long enough to warrant signage. Since the South Leg was cancelled, plus the lack of connections between the 11th Street Bridge and DC 295, there was less of a need to sign I-695 after the freeway cancellations.

So why sign I-695 in DC when there's an I-695 around Baltimore, some ask. Wouldn't that just cause confusion? It might for unaware drivers and tourists, but there's precedent for signing nearby Interstates with the same number. We already have that in the DC area: both DC and Baltimore have I-395. An example with even less intermediate distance can be found in New England. I-291 exists in both Springfield, MA and suburban Hartford, CT, separated by only 22 miles. By comparison, over 31 miles separate DC's and Baltimore's I-695.

Now that DDOT plans to remove the Southeast Freeway spur to Pennsylvania Ave and is building connections between the 11th Street Bridge and DC 295, the agency has decided to reintroduce us to I-695. To reduce driver confusion, DDOT should install consistent signage all along I-695 and at the interchanges at both endpoints. Only time will tell if drivers can adjust to the "great route experiment."

The options FTA gave DDOT

Let's start with the 2nd claim, that FTA gave DDOT plenty of options in July. The 3 options, according to Brian Farber, Associate Administrator from the Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs, were:

1. To reopen the FHWA EIS document and evaluate streetcar for the bridge.
2. To conduct an expedited FTA EA and evaluate streetcar on the bridge.
3. To extend the northern terminus of the current Historic Anacostia FTA EA to include the 11th Street bridge, and evaluate streetcar from the Anacostia Metro station to the western terminus of the bridge.

However, this is all happening while the bridge has long been under construction. Work began in December 2009. According to several people familiar with the bridge project, DDOT at this point faced two unpleasant choices: pull the tracks off the bridge, or start an environmental process that could take years.

Besides the extensive public participation process that would have been required, the bridge EIS had drawn a lawsuit for the way it added cross-river vehicular capacity while claiming it didn't. Personally, I agreed with the opponents and think DDOT made a mistake doing the bridge this way. Adding the "missing link" may well draw vehicle trips through the region off the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and into DC.

But that's water under the bridge, as it were, and now that the bridge is half built, it doesn't seem wise of DDOT to reopen all those cans of worms. I'm skeptical it would best "save taxpayer monies in the long run" to delay work while a long EIS occurs, and potentially incur huge penalties from the contractor if the EIS takes very long, as it likely would.

People familiar with the discussions (including additional people beyond those I spoke to for the original story) confirm the basic truth of what I reported. Unfortunately, everyone is very reluctant to be quoted publicly. Transportation professionals will inevitably have to work with federal agencies. They don't want to raise the ire of FTA and imperil other projects.

Did FTA have leeway?

All of the options FTA offered involved not putting the tracks on the bridge until after further environmental review. If FTA really felt they had absolutely no choice, then what they did was best. They stopped DDOT as they had to, but they gave DDOT various (unpalatable) alternatives.

But did they have to? I spoke to several transportation professionals who feel FTA could have let the tracks go forward, or at least let DC finish them with local dollars. Commenter Will P (who is familiar with the situation) agreed, writing:

DC had the ability and planned to pay for the rails on the bridge with local money. What FTA is saying is that if DC chose to put in the rails on the Bridge before their mandated studies, they would then be disqualified from getting federal dollars for segments that would connect to the Bridge.

This is an unusual situation because the key decision point is coming not during the early design phases or during bidding, but after the project has long been underway. According to people familiar with the process, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had signed off on project documents which did include the streetcars. These include early construction documents and also "Plans, Specifications & Estimates" (PS&E) reports.

Here's the core of the timeline, as best as I can understand it from talking to numerous people:

1. DDOT completed an EIS for the bridge that included "accommodation" of transit but was vague about what transit exactly would be included. The EIS won an award from FHWA for its public process.
   
2. DDOT prepared to build the project with mostly local dollars. They decided to include tracks to save money in the future on the streetcar network.
   
3. DDOT switched to use mostly federal money on the project. They were working with FHWA. The construction documents and intermediate PS&Es signed off on by FHWA included the tracks.
   
4. At some point, when DDOT asked to switch the type of tracks to comply with Buy America, people at FHWA realized they should involve FTA and talked to FTA about the tracks.
   
5. FTA judged that the tracks hadn't gone through proper process. FHWA then told DDOT they couldn't do the tracks without more review.
   
6. FTA suggested 3 options for DDOT to get approval for the tracks, which would have required longer process that could have delayed the entire project and cost more money.
   
7. In July, DDOT decided not to pursue those and finish the project without the tracks.

In step 3, DDOT officials apparently believed that they had the necessary federal approvals to go ahead with tracks, since FHWA had signed off on documents. Maybe DDOT should have realized they should go talk to FTA. Maybe they were hoping nobody would notice so they didn't have to. Or maybe they honestly thought everything was fine.

Clearly, if DDOT had gone through some more process years ago, we would all be better off today. DDOT officials admit they probably screwed up, in hindsight. But federal processes are very complex. A agency can go extremely slowly and make absolutely sure they cross every t and dot every i (and still maybe make mistakes), or they can try to move faster and do the best they can. DDOT, from at least Dan Tangherlini through Gabe Klein, was trying to move fast and get a lot done. Somewhere along the way (though before Gabe Klein took over), this happened.

But in June, whatever happened before, we were faced with this situation: One federal agency had been telling DDOT they could go ahead; now another stepped in and said no. Maybe federal law is so unambiguous that the tracks can't possibly go forward, even if FHWA had approved them for months, even with local money, that FTA officials had absolutely no choice. But was it?

Could they have said, "That's too bad, this one got by. Hey, FHWA, please try to keep an eye out for stuff like this in the future, and DDOT, we're going to ask you to be a little more careful next time. Okay? Let's just do the tracks anyway and we'll all try to do better."

Or, could they have said, "We're sorry, we really don't think that it's legal to use federal money for the tracks, but if you want to use some local money, we'll let this be a 'nonparticipating' part of the project."

That's the question. Rogoff's letter suggests these two options were not available to FTA. Other transportation professionals say they were. This question defines the issue of whether FTA "put up a roadblock" in July, or just acted as they must.

Update: In the Post piece, Rogoff also adds another option, placing removable blocks on the bridge that can be changed to tracks in the future. Rogoff's piece says DDOT declined to pursue any options, including the removable blocks, but DDOT spokesperson John Lisle says the removable blocks are indeed what DDOT is doing as part of making the bridge "streetcar ready."

Lisle says that DC will save some money, at least $1.5 million, of the $300 million project for not putting in the tracks, but it will cost more to install the tracks later. DDOT doesn't have figures on how much, exactly, it will cost in the future to add tracks.

Adding them later will also force DDOT to close down lanes on the bridge. Right now, the bridge is being built next to the old bridge, allowing all of the traffic that currently uses the bridge to keep doing so during almost all of the construction. Once the new bridge opens and the old one demolished, a track project will require interfering with existing traffic.

So why couldn't DDOT include the tracks? Environmental review rules, federal officials' interpretations of those rules, and DDOT's eagerness to move quickly all mixed together.

DDOT completed its Environmental Impact Statement for the bridge project in 2006, working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The "Purpose and Need" of the project, an official statement in any EIS that defines its goals, was to deal with traffic congestion stemming from the "missing link" between the bridge and the Anacostia Freeway to the northeast.

A secondary Purpose and Need was to better connect neighborhoods on each side of the river and to the waterfront itself. The freeway acts as a barrier, and getting across on any motorized vehicle requires getting onto a freeway and then off again. Therefore, DDOT decided to separate freeway and local bridges. The EIS mentioned that the local bridge would be designed for "future transit accommodation."

Is including tracks "accommodation" or not? What is "accommodation"? Is it just building the bridge with the structural capacity to handle streetcar vehicles? The actual slabs to underlie tracks? The underground conduit for power and foundations for catenary poles? All of the infrastructure short of actual service? The EIS doesn't specify.

DDOT originally planned to use mostly local money for the project, but switched to make it mainly federal when the stimulus bill passed. Significant funding became available to projects that were ready to obligate their money within 6 months, and the 11th Street Bridge was one of the few large enough projects ready to go.

People familiar with the conversations between DDOT and federal officials, speaking only on condition of anonymity, say that FHWA had signed off on contracts that included mention of the rails, but in early summer, DDOT tried to change the type of rails in order to comply with Buy America requirements that mandate more expensive, domestic rails. FHWA then brought in FTA, which objected to the project not having gone through even more environmental review.

FHWA ultimately appeared willing to give DDOT permission to include the tracks, according to the people familiar with the discussions, but FTA said no. Ironically, the federal government has subsequently offered waivers to Buy America around rails.

The question here is whether FTA had to make the decision they did, or had leeway. And if they had leeway, should they have used it to let the project move forward?

Already, federal regulations impose greater burdens on transit projects. To get funding, transit projects have to meet complex cost-effectiveness criteria while highway projects do not. The FTA acts at times like it's the Federal Make Transit More Difficult Administration. That's not because they're anti-transit, per se, but simply that they are regulating transit, FHWA is regulating roads, and FTA is the stricter parent.

One of the FTA's added hurdles is a requirement that environmental analyses not "prejudice" their decision for any mode. Local agencies have to study many modes, even ones that seem ridiculous on their face, like heavy rail transit for a project that evidently is best as bus or streetcar, or even considering monorail alongside other modes. Highway projects have no comparable requirement; cities don't have to study whether every new road should be carpool-only, for instance.

FTA officials objected that putting tracks on the bridge could predjudice the the Environmental Assessment (EA) underway for streetcar service in Anacostia. Even though DC already has a streetcar segment under construction in part of Anacostia and has made a citywide commitment to streetcars, FTA requires them to pretend none of that exists for the purpose of thinking about Anacostia. In the meantime, they're stopping another transit facility from being part of a project.

There are only 5 bridges connecting DC neighborhoods across the Anacostia, and they're each rebuilt once a generation at most. The EIS already considered the provision of transit service, which in any event has only positive environmental consequences for surrounding neighborhoods compared to single-passenger motor vehicle traffic.

Federal officials have substantial leeway within the regulations to help projects move forward more smoothly or put up obstacles. Sadly, in this case those at FTA seem to have chosen the latter. Instead, perhaps FTA should have been excited to see DC's commitment to transit and willingness to put money, including substantial local money, behind it.

Last year, some said that FTA officials were annoyed with DDOT for moving ahead with tracks on H Street, using local money, without involving FTA. This might have contributed to their rejecting DC for an Urban Circulator grant.

Perhaps DDOT could have worked better with its federal partners, and it probably should have involved FTA sooner in the 11th Street bridge project. But the federal agencies also create a disincentive to work with them when they impose even more rules than NEPA, the environmental act that mandates EISes and EAs, really requires.

The Adrian Fenty and Gabe Klein approach was to move forward as quickly as possible and get things done, sometimes with a minimum of process. In some cases, that led to action that might otherwise have gotten mired in years of debate but which are now remarkably successful, like the cycle tracks or Capital Bikeshare. With this bridge, that posture alienated some federal officials.

DDOT should take more care to follow proper process, and its current leadership is taking pains to rebuild relationships with federal partners even though that likely means slowing progress on streetcar and other projects. That's a good strategy. But federal employees should think about the big picture, too. If they slow down projects whose DOTs try to move fast but maybe come off as a little arrogant along the way, the end result is to hurt transit and the residents of cities who need its service today.

Now, before there can be tracks on the bridge, DDOT will have to undergo an environmental review, then find and program the extra money for the construction. 2020 might be an optimistic timeframe at this point, whereas the money was already in hand to build the tracks this year had FTA chosen to be flexible instead of taking the strictest approach.

Meanwhile, DC expects major development around Saint Elizabeth's and elsewhere in Ward 8. Sadly, our ability to better connect this important and growing area to the rest of the city has just lost a decade, thanks to this decision.

Options 3 and 6, where one direction runs several blocks farther east or west than the other direction, were cut because they're too confusing for riders. In option, 3 which used 14th Street for the northbound direction, Some residents were also concerned about negative affects to historic buildings along 14th, particularly viewsheds of the Frederick Douglass House.

Alignments 7, 8, and 10, which would have served the Poplar Point site, were deemed too far removed from the existing community to be effective. While some residents wanted the streetcar away from downtown Anacostia entirely, others didn't want the project to ignore the heart of the community.

Any development in Poplar Point a future streetcar might serve is years away, hasn't even been designed yet, and requires federal reviews. DDOT would have to avoid adverse affects to Anacostia Park, and can't connect to the land using their current right-of-way.

View alternative: 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  
View larger version (PDF)

Three of the four remaining alignments serve the main business district along MLK, while also moving one set of tracks off of MLK at its narrowest section. One alignment serves 13th Street and the residential neighborhood to the east of the main district.

The other two options serve Shannon Place and Railroad Avenue, respectively, the two streets between MLK and the CSX railroad tracks. Both streets have significant potential development along their lengths.

The alignment serving 13th Street could provide better transit service to the residents there and also bring more activity to the churches along that street. However, the potential for new development is low because the street is primarily low-density homes. It's unlikely that higher density apartments or condos would replace those.

DDOT's goal for the streetcar is also to connect activity centers, not serve interior neighborhood streets, like buses do. Running the streetcar along 13th Street could better connect those residents to MLK, but the purpose of the streetcar is not simply to improve local circulation.

Instead, the Anacostia streetcar is part of the larger 37-mile network. The streetcar will serve the business district of the neighborhood while also better connecting Anacostia residents with the rest of the city.

The options along Shannon Place and Railroad Avenue are fairly similar because both alignments have a higher development potential and both serve the business district. There are few residences along these streets, which are primarly industrial.

Running along Shannon Place could be more effective, because those tracks are closer to MLK. Railroad Avenue is one block farther west, which expands the core service area and could make the streetcar less useful.

One of the consultants from HDR, the firm working with DDOT on the study, noted that longer distances between the tracks could be confusing. Riders would also have to walk farther to connect to either direction. Railroad Avenue doesn't connect directly to the 11th Street bridge either, so DDOT would have to construct a right of way there.

In both of these cases, one track separates from MLK to help mitigate traffic congestion and potential loss of parking spaces. Many residents have expressed concern that losing on-street parking could hurt local businesses.

The final alignment, along the CSX railroad tracks, has the least community impact and up front is almost $30 million cheaper. However, it does not serve the existing business district or any residential streets. DDOT would have to purchase the right of way from CSX, which would add to the cost. The state of those negotiations are also unclear and DDOT staff weren't able to say when they might conclude.

Historic preservation could also play a role in the CSX alignment. The streetcar would have to make a sharp right turn at the intersection of the 11st Street bridge and Good Hope Road, where a historic building, formerly the Green Derby, stands. The minimum turning radius for a modern streetcar is about 62 feet and this turn could clip part of the property. DDOT might have to acquire the property in this case, but would not for any of the other routes.

The study team has also posted their presentation from the meeting.

Last night's meeting was more productive than the March meeting because residents were able to talk with DDOT staff and examine the options more closely. In March, residents discussed the options in small groups, then presented to the whole room. It was a good opportunity for dialogue, but also gave some opponents an opportunity to grandstand against the project.

The next stage in the planning process is to develop a locally preferred alternative, which DDOT hopes to do by late fall. There is a "no-build" alternative which maintains existing transportation options. DDOT would then reallocate funds for the project to other areas.

One solution mentioned at the workshop and over the past few years is to route the streetcars along the old CSX railroad on the western fringe of Anacostia.

Though the right-of-way is already in place, such a location would remove the streetcar from MLK Avenue, which serves as a main commercial corridor of the neighborhood. Removing the route from MLK inhibits the streetcar's ability to revitalize the main street since the new amenity will actually lie two blocks to the west. For this reason we must look at every feasible way to run the line along MLK.

Running along MLK is possible, however, if private auto traffic and streetcars share the existing travel lanes and leave the curb lane permanently for parking.

This arrangement maintains the street parking and loading zones that businesses need while permitting cars, streetcars, and buses to pass through the neighborhood. The only possible downside to this arrangement is that streetcars will block the only travel lane at each of the two stops in downtown Anacostia.

Fortunately, since streetcars permit boarding through all 3 doors and since payment occurs when passengers are already on board, a streetcar's "dwell time", the time stopped at a stop, can be much shorter than that of a bus.

Here is what a streetcar line on MLK might look like, especially after the Great Streets streetscape project.

Mixing two-way streetcar traffic on two-lane streets is nothing new. DDOT even provided a photo of such an arrangement in Toronto:

The delay for drivers is minimal as there are only two stops planned in Anacostia and since each stop will take as long as the typical wait at a red light. More importantly, a line along MLK has the greatest chance to revitalize a neighborhood in need of economic development.

Much was made in the media during the mayoral election about bike lanes and how they fed "the perception that outgoing Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) was more attuned to the concerns of affluent parts of the city."

It is true that there are few bike lanes in Wards 7 and 8 when compared to the L'Enfant city. But much of this is due to the original design of the roads, which comes from when they were built.

Roads built before the introduction of the automobile tend to have odd widths for car travel, leaving extra space that can be requisitioned for bike lanes, while roads in newer parts of the city were built with cars in mind, leaving no unused space. As was demonstrated on Pennsylvania Avenue last year, it is politically easier to narrow a single 17-foot lane to 12 feet with a 5-foot bike lane than to remove a lane of traffic.

In order to meet their goals that everyone in the District live within a half mile of a bike lane or trail, DDOT is adding miles of trail in neighborhoods under-served by bike lanes. In contrast to bike lanes, DDOT is building most of its trails in the eastern half of the city.

Several projects are under construction now.

Over the past year, construction has been ongoing on a 3-mile long section of the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART) from the Douglass Bridge to the existing section in the River Terrace neighborhood. More than half of it has already been paved and the last section awaits completion of a project to shift Anacostia Drive away from the river.

An under-construction bridge over the railroad tracks will complete the trail from Firth Sterling Avenue to Benning Road. A future, 2-mile long section of the ART from Benning Road to the DC Boundary is being designed now.

When the 11th Street Bridge is completed it will replace a narrow 4-6 foot bike/ped path with a 14-foot active transportation lane that connects the ART on both sides of the river.

Joining these projects as currently-underway is the Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue Great Streets project. That will close a gap in the 2-mile long Marvin Gaye Park trail, which itself went through a complete rebuild and upgrade from 2006-2009. The Pennsylvania Avenue SE Great Streets project will also include parallel bike facilities.

Meanwhile, DDOT is preparing to move forward with three additional trail projects that will add or upgrade 11 miles of trail in the southernmost part of DC.

Map of planned bike trails modified from a DDOT image.

The current Oxon Run Trail runs from South Capitol Street SE to 13th St SE in the Washington Highlands area. The new, 5 miles of trails would extend southeast to the DC-MD line and connect with the trails in Oxon Hill Farm NP and northeast to Southern Ave (and the Metro station there) where, with help from PG County, it will connect to the Suitland Parkway trail.

The Oxon Run trail involves several upgrades and extensions. There will be a full trail on both sides of Oxon Run, much of it widened to 10' and repaved. The existing bike/ped bridges that cross the stream would also be widened and improved. Many sidewalks in the park will be reconstructed and new ones will be built. In some places the trail will be rerouted to make it straighter.

Bike lanes will be added to Southern Ave and Mississippi Ave to serve as the northern section. Four new bike/ped bridges will be built across Oxon Run and its tributaries. A new trail section from Joliet St SW to Blue Plains Dr. SW will create another connection to the Wilson Bridge route. In addition to the trail projects it will include several storm water management elements. Bioretention ponds and other such landscaping will reduce the amount of street-to-stream storm-water flow. The whole project would cost $10.7 million.

A second trail project is a transportation improvement related to the already underway redevelopment of St Elizabeths as the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. In order to serve the thousands of new workers there, a new road along the west side of the campus is planned. The access road will connect Firth Sterling with Malcolm X Avenue and then with MLK Avenue just north of the intersection with South Capitol. A parallel 8-10 foot wide trail will be built on the east side of the 1.7 mile long access road.

With the South Capitol Street trail, the trail off the Douglass Bridge and the new streetcar station, the intersection of South Capitol and Firth Sterling Avenue will become a significantly more important transportation hub, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

Another sidepath will be built on the north side of Malcolm X Avenue from the South Capitol Street trail to MLK Avenue. Furthermore, bike lanes will possibly be added to a rebuilt MLK Avenue.

Finally, the South Capitol Street trail project will build a new, 4.25 mile long, 8-10 foot wide trail where currently there is none. Cyclists may currently go south on the roadway, but there is no way to go north and no place for pedestrians.

The trail (in solid orange on the map) would start at the intersection of South Capitol and Firth Sterling. It would cross the streetcar tracks at grade and then continue on the west side of South Capitol and Overlook Avenue. Just before Laboratory Road the trail would cross to the east side of Overlook, then cross Laboratory and follow along the south side of that to Shepherd Parkway. It would then become a sidepath along Shepherd Parkway, Blue Plains Drive and DC Village Lane to the existing trail connection to Oxon Hill Farm.

The trail would be, in some places, pinched between the federal facilities' fences and the roads, with bus stops and other obstructions creating more pinching. To overcome this, DDOT plans to remove lanes from the parallel roads in some places, narrow the lanes in others or, sometimes both. Their traffic analysis shows that this will do little to lower the level of service for drivers while creating enough space for a safe trail.

In addition, an interim connection (in light blue on the map) would be built between South Capitol and the Oxon Run Trail. It would be an on-road route using sharrow lane markings along Halley Pl, 1st St and Atlantic St SE.

The whole $5.7M project would be built in four phases, some of which need to be coordinated with the rebuilding of DC Village and proposed improvements to I-295/ South Capitol Street, as a part of the DHS redevelopment of the St Elizabeths property.

Once all of these projects are completed, moving around Wards 7 and 8 by foot or bicycle will become an increasingly safe, easy and pleasant experience. They should help to increase bike commuting to the government facilities along the river and at St. Elizabeths and provide new recreational opportunities.