Bike lanes on New Mexico Avenue have some resistance

GGW had a meeting announcement about an ANC 3D meeting last night where the New Mexico Avenue bike lanes were to be discussed.

The ANC voted to oppose [the lanes] in January. Their objections centered around reducing "bicycle and car conflicts," which makes little sense as bike lanes reduce conflicts, unless they really mean that they don't want anyone bicycling in the area.

Someone at the meeting reported that the ANCs concerns were that:

1) The road is too narrow to support a bike lane, in addition to the two existing parking lanes and two driving lanes. [WC: That sounds unlikely]

2) This is particularly true near the intersection of Nebraska Avenue, where there are turn lanes and a bus stop. 

3) There are many driveways onto New Mexico, particularly near the office buildings/stores, and parked cars already make visibility for drivers exiting those driveways limited. Having to turn across a bike lane will make it even more difficult. AU's plans for new buildings where the Nebraska Ave. parking lot are calls for an underground garage entrance/exit, which will also be a problem.  [WC:This has not really been a problem elsewhere]

4) Delivery trucks double park in front of the office buildings, which means they would park in the bike lane (surprise!), requiring bikes to go into the car lanes. [WC: if we didn't build bike lanes where people parked in them, we wouldn't build bike lanes]

5) The bike lanes would take away 13 parking spaces, and parking is already tight in the area. [WC: No problem, apparantly everyone will just double park in the bike lane. This may have been #5 in the program, but I suspect it was #1 in their heart. "We support bicycling, but not if we have to give anything up." As Harriet Tregoning noted on NPR last week, the number of registered cars in DC is down something like 10%, so it makes sense that we can reduce parking.]

6) As a general matter, putting bicyclists into bike lanes makes them less safe and increases the possibility of bike-car conflicts. [WC: Huh? That is not what the data shows]

One commissioner pointed out that because New Mexico is not safe for bikes now, he often bikes up 44th street instead, or on the sidewalk. He believed a bike lane would lead cyclists to bike on New Mexico instead of side streets, reducing safety. [WC: It's as bad as those candy-apple-red bikeshare bikes that draw children to cross the street]

Another commissioner pointed out that her previous experience includes stopping a $1M bike lane project.

And added

No further vote was taken, but there was strong sentiment that the ANC wanted to learn from DDOT how to register its strong opposition to the bike lane and essentially to stop it from happening. Several residents spoke in opposition, echoing these concerns. One person from ANC3B spoke in favor of the lane, as did I.

Unfortunately, Jim Sebastian from DDOT didn't do the best job in making the case for the bike lane. He was a bit on his heels because apparently DDOT had previously sent a letter suggesting that the bike lane was a done deal. The commissioners don't take kindly to their prerogatives to block things being circumvented. He also did not make a strong case for the bike lane itself--the main argument for it was that DC is installing bike lanes and this seemed to be a good opportunity to add some more bike lanes. He made no mention of the Glover Park transportation study, or how the lane would interconnect with other bike lanes. He had no data to support the need for a bike lane in this area (e.g., some study of the number of users), although they did estimate 100 riders/day use that stretch of New Mexico. He also presented no strong counterarguments to the safety points, such as information about improved safety created by other bike lanes (if such data exist). He also had not distributed a plan/diagram in advance of the meeting, which could have allowed for more study and opportunity to address specific concerns rather than generalized fears based on speculation. Finally, he did not explain any coordination that may exist between the bike lane and addressing other traffic issues in the area, including Ward Circle (discussed earlier at the meeting), the intersection of New Mexico and Nebraska (which is a mess already from vehicle and pedestrian traffic), and New Mexico generally (which is too wide in places, leading to lane jockeying in places).

Comments

[Brian]

It's a shame that it went down this way. I work at AU and bike up New Mexico pretty much every day. A climbing lane would be a nice amenity and I think it would attract many more cyclists from the nearby neighborhoods. I don't know if this is anti-student/university backlash or just general NIMBYism, but I just don't really get it. Like you, I suspect it's the parking, since there's more than enough space for bikes and cars on New Mexico now.

[ah]

I find the parking issue to be a canard. The spaces that might be lost are metered spaces for 2 hours. There is usually plenty of parking on neighborhood streets during the day (2 hour zoned), all of 1-2 blocks away. So if anyone is losing parking it's more likely to be visitors from outside the area, not neighbors (who with an RPP would have unlimited parking a block away anyway).

None of the comments suggested the opposition related to AU. Perhaps it was in the background but it did not seem to be motivating the objections.

(btw, same ah who posted summary on ggw)

[Brian]

Thanks, ah. I really appreciated your summary of the meeting and I'm sorry that I couldn't attend. What do you think is driving (hah) the opposition?
With regard to the campus plan, I just saw this timely post at ggw: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9421/au-students-need-more-quality-on-campus-housing/.
I can't help but think that this is lurking in the background and causing a general anxiety about any changes in the neighborhood.

[ah]

One of the commissioners told me he thought there was significant resentment that the ANC had not been consulted beforehand and that DDOT presented it as a "this will happen" and did not offer the opportunity for input.

That said, from all the discussion they commissioners seemed to have a visceral adverse reaction to a bike lane with concerns it would somehow diminish safety. I don't think it was more complex than that.

[Upside]

I had written to ANC member Thomas about this back in January. I didn't hear back until Feb 17th. Here's what he said about my thought that a bike lane should be added to NM Ave:

"First let me say thank you for your comments and I will always take it
into consideration. The ANC definitely agrees on bike lanes and the
purpose of them. The reason why the ANC voted against the bike lanes
on New Mexico Ave. was because at the time when the issue came before
the ANC the plans weren't complete. The plans showed bike lanes on New
Mexico Ave. but no where else. The main reason why the ANC voted
against the bike lanes and the major concern we had was because the
bike lane stop at Nebraska in which is a considered a heavy traffic
street. To my knowledge we are still looking into the bike lanes on
New Mexico Ave. we just want it to be safe pathway for bikes, cars and
pedestrians.

Are next meeting is schedule for March the 2nd at 7pm at Sibley
Hospital. At the beginning of each meeting we have set aside time for
Community Concerns. Your more then welcome to come in voice your
opinion before the commission.

W. Philip Thomas "

[Contrarian]

Philip Thomas is also my commissioner and I wrote to him as well and got the same response. Since he said the main problem was the bike lanes stopping at Nebraska Ave, I asked him whether he would prefer they stop before or after Nebraska. He responded: "The main reasons why we voted against the issue was because of safety and the overwelling construction that is about to happen will the AU Campus Plan and Homeland Security."

I get the feeling that the bike lane itself is not really the issue, but it's considered part of the expansion of AU and Homeland Security in the area.

[Brian]

There's not really an "after Nebraska Avenue" (at that point, you're on the campus), so before seems to be the only option. Stopping the lanes 100 feet before the intersection would give cyclists adequate space to merge back in with traffic. Plus, if their trips (like mine) were ending at AU, they could just bike straight into the SIS garage or cross the street with pedestrians at the crosswalk.

[ah]

Also, once you approach the intersection the terrain is much more flat, so it's entirely feasible to end it short of the intersection.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4326+Klingle+Road,+Washington+D.C.,+DC&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.139534,93.691406&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=4326+Klingle+Rd+NW,+Washington+D.C.,+District+of+Columbia,+20016&ll=38.935328,-77.087028&spn=0.009898,0.022874&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.935244,-77.086942&panoid=lhhVHDjJSdw1M5bZ8cPBrA&cbp=12,336.16,,0,19.27

[Brian]

Was there any discussion about removing those two parking spaces right before the intersection? I feel like those cause more frustration to drivers than any bike lane would. If occupied, they effectively prevent the start of the right turn lane until maybe 50 feet before the intersection.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4326+Klingle+Road,+Washington+D.C.,+DC&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.139534,93.691406&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=4326+Klingle+Rd+NW,+Washington+D.C.,+District+of+Columbia,+20016&t=h&layer=c&cbll=38.93552,-77.087265&panoid=EPlK_xt7tnE-JPfKL5WUjw&cbp=12,36.93,,0,23.47&ll=38.935445,-77.087138&spn=0.008012,0.01929&z=16

[ah]

There was -- one of the Commissioners pointed out those two spaces and had concerns they would be lost. The DDOT rep said that it was a bus stop and there "shouldn't" be any spaces there. Neither of them pursued the factual discrepancy.

For all the talk about congestion at this intersection, I'd bet the ANC would fight the removal of those spaces (even though they're almost certainly used by AU visitors)

[ah]

BTW, I went to look at the AU campus plan, and the traffic study they did calls for eliminating those two spaces, creating a longer right turn lane, and relocating the bus stop, all to relieve congestion.