[bikepedantic]

@Kolohe 198758 wrote:

This may be nitpicky (but I think it’s also how bike infrastructure goes from ‘good’ to ‘blah’ to ‘unacceptable’ between planning to execution to sustainment phases), but I’d just say that not all the black lines are equivalent.

An example of something I would like any policymaker to keep in mind if they’re looking at this map – but also coming into this totally new – is that stretch at Gravely point between the parking lot and the place maybe 100 yards to east where the congestion on nice days finally clears out some. That stretch imo, is not good for ‘all ages & abilities biking’ simply because of widely varying speeds on the trail (from too fast to stopped completely) of both bicyclists and those on foot.

Thanks! Great comment, not nitpicky at all. The primary thing I was trying to capture with the map was ‘level of traffic stress,’ or the degree to which people feel at risk of getting hit by a car. The MVT scores well in that regard, but to your point, isn’t somewhere i’d feel great about letting my kid ride, because the ‘trail level of service’ (Trail LOS) is so low (it’s too narrow to handle its high multimodal demand).

You’re right, my primary target in this exercise is developers and county staff and residents who are interested in pushing progress with the on-street program. But at some point, I probably will try to dig up some data to measure the Trail LOS and put that in there (existing MVT fails, we all know, and i’d love to see that bypass happen)

[bikepedantic]

@zsionakides 198664 wrote:

Joyce St under 395 between Army Navy and Columbia Pike doesn’t have a PBL or trail. There’s a wide side path for about half the length, but the rest is beat up sidewalks or riding in very high speed traffic. That part of Joyce should be road dieted with the low traffic volumes and high speeds, but I wouldn’t count on that, particularly if DOD has a say in the matter.

Thanks, i’l doublecheck the Col Pike realignment plans to see if they’re matching the sidepaths on Joyce.

[bikepedantic]

@LhasaCM 178969 wrote:

[*]How does the design avoid conflicts with the freeway-style ramps at N. Capitol?
[*]Will the design accommodate/integrate with the planned AFRH development envisioned for the SE corner of their property?
[/LIST]

All great questions, I can speculate on the two above – assuming that the team hasn’t strayed too far from the original plan, this design effort will likely propose doing something that runs through the N Cap ramp complex adjacent to the median (on one or both sides), to avoid the ramps entirely. If true, questions about how people get in and out at Michigan, the hospital entrance, & Kenyon, are going to be important. Exclusive bike phases might be part of that.

This project is intended as a short/medium term measure in advance of AFRH. The Crosstown plan envisioned proper trails on either one or both sides of Irving, to be implemented with the AFRH development, and the conceptual redesign (blowing up) of the N Cap cloverleaf, to be replaced by a more conventional intersection.

[bikepedantic]

There’s a ton of design options in these corridors. Some suggestions on things to focus in on:

*How do they propose to get bicyclists into/out of lanes at the Irving/Michigan intersection? How does that work with planned cycletrack on the west side of 4th St NE (from Lincoln Rd to Michigan)?
*How do they get bicyclists through the 1st St NW/Irving intersection?
*How do they handle bicyclists and the Kenyon/Irving split?
*Depending on what they propose for the E-W route, there may be opportunities to upgrade the N-S routes south of Kenyon

[bikepedantic]

@lordofthemark 178788 wrote:

betcha miss DC now, huh? :rolleyes:

oh, I’m quite satisfied to chime in on DC with five miles of buffer, in the past tense.

[bikepedantic]

@ginacico 178781 wrote:

This part though:
“They’d like to eventually find a way to continue the lane around Farragut Square to connect to the planned Pennsylvania Avenue west of the White House lanes and even to Constitution, but that’s further down the road, metaphorically as well as literally.”

I know what my Dad (who’s 89 and has memory issues) means when I make a suggestion and he says that’s “down the road”. It means he doesn’t really want to do it, and is trying to break it to me gently. I hope DDOT and the powers that be don’t give up strategizing about improvements to the vital link from K to Constitution. It’s the worst part of my bike commute, and I know I speak for many cyclists when I say it’s a dangerous and frustrating mess.

DC commuters, please consider signing the petition for a cycletrack on 17th Street.

I no longer work there, so I can only speak to my motivations in getting the project launched, and why we didn’t look past K – There’s a LOT going on in Farragut Square – busy I and K Street traffic, a someday-maybe major streetcar reconstruction, NPS park ownership, an existing popular food truck cluster, etc. Figuring out that linkage will take a major effort.

Proceeding from the Square down to Constitution (included in 3rd tier of moveDC) would also entail some work & tradeoffs, in terms of heavy H and I Street traffic turn conflicts, curbside use, and USSS needs. And moveDC has lines on F & G Streets, to better connect the TR Bridge sidepath – those facilities (esp G) would require some work to figure out how they would safely connect with the most-likely 17th St facility.

All of this is to say that the K Street boundary was chosen because things get a LOT harder south of there, and tackling them with the quick-hit project that DDOT is pursuing would eliminate the quick-hit. Doing better lanes that only get people down to L&M aren’t perfect, or completely address the network need, but they do have utility.

[bikepedantic]

@jrenaut 178782 wrote:

This is such a beautiful statement. Bike congestion! We built a pretty good protected cycletrack and what do you know, so many people are using it that it’s getting crowded.

Every time i said it, i couldn’t help but grin. It’s a great milestone, but has real safety impacts. If you’ve ever gone against the dominant bike traffic flow in peak period, you know.

[bikepedantic]

@Mariner 178718 wrote:

Start with this question: In the original MoveDC [URL=”http://www.wemovedc.org/resources/Final/Part%202_Plan_Elements/Bicycle.pdf%5DMulti-Modal Long Range Transportation Plan[/URL] for the city, no changes to the 17th Street corridor were anticipated.

I was the one at DDOT who got this started, and the rationale was that while it wasn’t on moveDC:

1) we had a community explicitly ask us to identify more protected bike lanes beyond what moveDC proposed for the area
2) there were no apparent huge tradeoffs to navigate
3) there’s bike congestion on 15th, this could help
4) signal progression is unfixably terrible for southbound riding on 15th, this provides a protected alternative
5) there’s demand to travel northbound by bike on 17th. The majority of riders on 17th in the evening are going north (on sidewalk, or illegally salmoning in the bikelane)

[bikepedantic]

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris. I’m going to add that there’s no reason to have two westbound travel lanes on 18th until the approach to the Bell intersection. That extra space for the first 2/3rds of the block can be used to buffer/protect the eastbound bikelane, and protect the westbound bikelane behind the street parking they’re proposing along the north curb. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of Hayes St and the Crystal City Metro sharkteeth curbs by forcing bikes to mix it up with buses adjacent to a Metro entrance

[bikepedantic]

Encouraging and participating in the creation of a Vision Zero multi-agency action plan.

[bikepedantic]

@Judd 173294 wrote:

I vote for whatever Darren Buck said.

this is flattering, but never a great plan.

Chris did a wonderful job of creating order out of chaos with these notes. And the concept design team has produced a design that looks wonderful and will absolutely transform the street. I’ll be there on the 31st to point at plans, hope others are as well. My big priorities for potential changes will be:

*Getting more space for cyclists to queue and safely & comfortably make the transitions to/from four different intersecting facilities at Joyce/Army-Navy. The street space is there to do it.
*Blocking all free left turns into/out of intersecting driveways with medians, and slowing cars turning right into/out of those driveways
*Protected intersection elements at the intersection of a (not-shown) last block of the Eads St PBL
*Banning that EB 12th left onto Army Navy (or hearing how they plan to operate that intersection). What they show in the concept doesn’t look safe/workable/efficient for any mode, while any left turn demand could be met via Eads instead.

[bikepedantic]

i’m one of the ddot folks working with the wharf devleopers (and also the scofflaw rider from yesterday, tsk tsk), just wanted to confirm few things on the thread –

Work has started on the NPS stuff for Banneker Circle (which includes the world’s most anticipated curb ramp, and a more formal 10′ trail down to the corner of 9th and Maine, replacing the old ragged asphalt one). Public space (roadway) permit plans aren’t finalized yet, but bike lanes will go around the circle, and up/down from 9th St.

ddot does have a contraflow lane on our to-do list (but not yet designed) for G St from 7th – 9th, to open up that route option

Other related projects that I don’t know timelines on (and don’t have a lot of details to share yet) are Wharf Phase II, which will extend the cycletrack down to the new Water St (just west of the episcopal church, to connect down to the Titanic Memorial promenade), and a one-block northbound-only PBL on 7th, from Maine up to Eye, as part of the separate development going on there.

Further afield, the Virginia Ave trail/cycletrack, soccer stadium cycletrack, and the South Cap Bridge are some of the other facilities in work downstream from Maine Ave, so we’re hoping this facility works out, as it’s going to be a very important connection

[bikepedantic]

Just wanted to throw the term “low stress” in here. While PBLs are a bit of a missing ingredient in Arlington (and most other places), and are rightfully debated, concentrating on low-stress facilities of all types should be the focus of a new plan. I hope this includes world-class PBLs, but also, cutting-edge neighborhood greenway standards/plans and trail development.

[bikepedantic]

I will also chime in with my commute…. Crystal City to 14th St Bridge.

For South Arlington (and Alexandrians to the south), there’s no alternative to get across the river. At a minimum, dbb’s first suggestion of restoring the LBJ Grove/Humpback connection. Next priority, continue plowing to the Gravelly Point parking lot, which would eliminate some slow-to-melt stretches, and would get the section that soldiers use for their PT run tests back open. But ideally, CC Connector to 14th gives us the complete connection, Alexandrians have a street option for access

[bikepedantic]

Unofficial DC plow tally –

Cycletracks – 15th St NW, L St NW, Penn Ave, 1st St NE, M St NE (all full length)
Trails – MBT (M to Franklin), Suitland

Sunday, we’re making another attempt at M St NW

[Author]

Posts