« 6th Annual Ride for Natasha 9/17/16 | Main | From the Archives: War on Horses »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Also, comments on the Rock Creek East Livability Study are due Monday August 29th. As of a few days ago, only 40 people had filled out the survey. Fill it out!!!

http://rockcreekeast2.com/draft-recommendations/

There is no way DDOT will add bike lanes to Michigan Ave in that stretch. It's four narrow lanes (2 in each direction) with occasional turn lanes. There is just too much volume on that street to eliminate travel lanes, at least from DDOTs POV. IF you can run those bike lanes east to South Dakota, you can run them to at least Varnum (part of the East Coast Greenway) or even Eastern Ave, which will eventually get a trail connecting to Fort Totten and the MBT.

What is a "shared use sidepath"? Is that like the sidewalk they have now? And I thought getting rid of the awful cloverleaf was on the table.

Concept 1 seem to make the most sense in terms of bicycle facilities. The 2-way bike path will encounter much less neighborhood opposition, as it takes parking away on only one street instead of two.

I am concerned, though, that the folks at DDOT still don't know what a Shared-Use path looks like, since they currently designate the 6' wide sidewalk on Irving as a "shared-use path". A proper path is 12' wide, with bicycle striping (yellow dashed lines) and RAISED intersections and crossings, designed for safe and convenient bicycling. Anything less is not worthy of the designation. I hope WABA is pushing strongly on this issue.

What is a "shared use sidepath"? Is that like the sidewalk they have now?

I don't think so. I think it is more like the facility along Pennsylvania Ave SE. A wide sidewalk or path, sometimes with asphalt.

http://bit.ly/2buDOhb

But it might be more like the facility currently being planned for C Street NE.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2015/06/c-street-ne-mulitimodal-corridor-study-meeting-2.html

I thought getting rid of the awful cloverleaf was on the table.

That is. Sort of. I didn't mention it because it wasn't bike related, but I think in both designs the cloverleaf will lose two leafs.

The cloverleaf is bike-related now because it makes for some terrible road crossings where cars are both hard to see and moving too quickly, especially when you're going east.

It's really disappointing that, even given a massively over-engineered road (Irving north of the hospital), designed for way more traffic than it gets and much higher speeds than are reasonable anywhere in the city, we still can't get DDOT to do anything really meaningful. There's plenty of room for protected lanes on either side plus nice sidewalks. And there's no parking to take away, so I really don't understand why they're being so timid.

Let me correct that - in 1, two leafs go away and the other two are changed to connector roads with traffic light intersections. In 2 all leafs go away and are replaced by a single connector road with traffic lights on both Michigan and N. Capitol.

Ahh, that is definitely an improvement. Thanks. I'm going to try to go to the meeting and express my concerns there, too.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader