Virginia to build new bike/ped bridge with Long Bridge expansion

On the heels of the completion of the Long Bridge draft EIS, Virginia has announced plans to fund a new rail bridge - just as the EIS recommended - across the Potomac just upstream of the current bridge, and to acquire 225 miles of track and 350 miles of railroad right of way from CSX for $525 million, including half of the right of way between Washington and Richmond, so that they can expand passenger traffic from DC to North Carolina and across the commonwealth. They also intend to build a new bicycle-pedestrian bridge between the new railroad bridge and the Yellow Line's Fenwick Bridge. Meanwhile, Maryland is going to expand the Beltway.

Virginia will assume about one-third of the cost, using existing rail funding and additional discretionary funds available through the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Federal funds will cover about another third of the price tag, including the $45 million rail share from the Atlantic Gateway grant. Amtrak intends to invest $944 million, state officials said.

Virginia anticipates it will raise the final share from regional partners, including the District and Maryland, as well as VRE and other Northern Virginia transportation boards. The District and Maryland have pledged support for a bridge expansion, though it is unclear how much each would be willing to contribute.

The bridge will create a great new connection between VA and DC and carry that connection over the GW Parkway in the critical 14th Street corridor. 

image from

Virginia officials said the state plans to build that pedestrian and bike bridge.

“We are working with our regional partners to determine how it will be funded and implemented,” Virginia Deputy Transportation Secretary Nick Donohue said.

Virginia and North Carolina will be buying 75 miles of abandoned rail right-of-way between Petersburg and Ridgeway, NC that would make a great rail trail, but a better high-speed rail line. Maybe there's even some room in the corridor for some rail with trail. One can dream. 

A transportation project of this magnitude is one cyclists should keep their eye on. It's not just the bridge or the way it goes over a major trail. Virginia is going to be doing construction all along the corridor, and each bit of work brings with it opportunities. 

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but we're going to need a name for the bike/ped bridge just so we all know what we're talking about.

The railroad bridge isn't even REALLY called the Long Bridge. The first bridge there was the Washington Bridge, but then people started calling it the Long Bridge Across the Potomac to distinguish it from Chain Bridge, and later just Long Bridge. When they built the current bridge it replaced one built in 1872 that carried both rail traffic and carriages. They replaced it with two bridges that were called Highway Bridge and Railroad Bridge. It wasn't until the late 1980's, during planning of the VRE, that the old "Long Bridge" name was reattached to the railroad bridge. 

Anyway I'm open to suggestions. Since it will be Virginia's Bridge, they'll probably get to name it so I'm prepared for it to be the Ralph Sampson Bridge or something.  

N. Quincy at the Custis Trail Before and After

N. Quincy at 15th and the Custis Trail before the 2017 rework of the crosswalk and bike lanes.


And After


(Meant to report on it at the time. Better late than never?)

Planning Board revises Veirs Mill Road plan to include Matthew Henson Trail overpass

Back in March, Montgomery County planners sought approval of their new Veirs Mil Corridor Master Plan. The plan would include, among other things, a new crossing for the Matthew Henson Trail and a parallel bikeway (see below), both of which are called for the county's new bicycle master plan.  


Since then there have been hearings in March and a planning board resolution passed in April. 

The Planning Board approved the plan with some revisions, most notably they replaced a recommendation to build an at-grade crossing for the Matthew Henson Trail (where two cyclists have been killed in the last few years) with an overpass. They also add a statement prioritizing road safety over congestion mitigation, lower the speed limit on a section between Havard and Bushey to 25 mph (from 35), and add the following:

As a goal, the number of additional lanes at signalized intersections should be minimized so that crossing distances and exposure of pedestrians and bicyclists to traffic when crossing the road are also minimized. Wherever it is determined to be beneficial to safety and does not create unacceptable congestion levels as defined by the applicable Subdivision Staging Policy congestion standard, the number of left turn lanes at a signalized intersection should be limited to one. Where dual left turn lanes are provided, consider the implementation of strategies to mitigate the speed of left-turning vehicles and to mitigate the additional width of the road that pedestrians and bicyclists must cross.

Revisions also move the interim bike network from Veirs Mill to the parallel service roads, as recommended by Council Staff. They also accept the Staff recommendation to change the Randolph Road interchange from a diamond interchange to a grade separated one that's better for cyclists and pedestrians. 

They replaced a recommendation for "Removal of channelized right turns at intersection of Veirs Mill Road and Connecticut Avenue" with

Wherever it is determined to be beneficial to safety, remove the channelized right tum lanes, particularly at the intersection of Veirs Mill Road and Connecticut Avenue, if feasible. If channelized right-tum lanes prove to be necessary, design the lanes to limit the exposure of vulnerable road users, including implementing measures to reduce the speed of turning vehicles so that vehicles yield, as required, to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the tum lane. 

One other thing in the plan that was not mentioned before is this. 

Consistent with the previous master plans, the Veirs Mill Corridor Master Plan continues to support the abandonment of the Aspen Hill Road extension to further facilitate the synergistic redevelopment of Halpine View, Parkway Woods and Halpine Hamlet. Further, this master plan continues to recommend a trail through the properties to connect to the new Twinbrook Trail and ultimately the Rock Creek Trail.

Arlington County Vision Zero Working Group has first meeting

Last month the newly formed Arlington County Vision Zero External Stakeholder Working Group had their first meeting. 

In July 2019, the Arlington County Board resolved to adopt a Vision Zero strategy as a comprehensive and holistic approach to eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the County. As directed by the County Board, the County is embarking on the development of the Vision Zero Goals and Action Plan this fall. Working with an Internal Stakeholder Working Group, an Internal Stakeholder Working Group and public engagement checkpoints along the way, we plan to finalize an Action Plan for review by the County Board in fall of 2020.

Working group members were invited in October 2019 from existing committees, commissions and community organizations identified by the internal Working Group. The mission of the group will be to support the County’s Vision Zero program 

Arlington has far fewer fatalities, a little over 3 a year on average, than DC, so in some ways it's an easier goal for them. But then in other ways it'll be harder since, for example, they don't have complete control over their roads. They're fatality rate is also much lower than other places in the region. (I can't explain the difference between the chart and the table for 2017).


There are future meetings and lots of plans and opportunities for public engagement, so if you care about VZ in Arlington find time to get involved. More can be found at Streetjustice (subscription needed). 

More e-bike sharing could be coming in the future

DC recently announced that more crental e-bikes could be coming to DC, which has been the trend over the last year. 

Last year (I know) Arlington was having it's dockless vehicle pilot program and announced that more companies could enter the market. 

County commuter services bureau chief Jim Larsen told the Transportation Commission last Thursday (Nov. 1) that two more scooter companies could soon enter Arlington as well: Skip and Lyft, which only recently began offering scooters in addition to its ridesharing service.

Then, by January, Larsen expects that Jump could also make the move from D.C. into Arlington and offer both electric bikes and scooters in the county.

Jump Scooters came to Arlington over the summer, but no bikes yet. Safety concerns about scooters remain, and the scope is becoming clearer, but hardly clear.

Others on the commission were less willing than Clement to attack the program’s legitimacy. Commissioner Jim Lantelme was interested in comparing the number of scooter-involved crashes to those involving bikes, noting that they “might actually be safer than bicycles or other methods” of getting around. Larsen, however, didn’t have such data available.

Meanwhile, in DC

The four companies — Jump (owned by Uber), Lyft, Skip and Spin — will be allowed to deploy up to 10,000 scooters starting Jan. 1, nearly doubling the number of devices available for rent in the city. In addition, the city is issuing two permits for e-bike operations to allow a total of 5,000 e-bikes beginning Jan. 1.

The city had announced plans in October to reduce the number of scooter operators and put four slots for scooter operations and four for e-bikes up for bid. Thirteen scooter companies and five e-bike companies applied, according to DDOT. An interagency committee evaluated the applications on a 198-point scale and selected the top point-earners.

Helbiz, an Italian company that launched its first e-bike operation in Rome last month, and Jump, which already operates e-bikes in the District, secured bike permits. Each will be allowed to deploy up to 2,500 of the devices.

Currently, the eight companies permitted to operate deploy just over 5,200 scooters combined. Additionally, Jump has nearly 1,000 e-bikes in service.

I'm not a big fan of the limits, but I think things are moving in a good direction. 

Milloy argues that because DC doesn't have good bike infrastructure, we shouldn't build bike infrastructure.

Screenshot 2019-11-19 at 11.29.25 PM

Courtland Milloy has chosen to write another anti-safe streets column, and as is usual it's full of mularkey.

To better understand what the fight over bike lanes in the District is about, it apparently helps to visit Copenhagen.

I've never been, but I think I have a good grasp on it and it has nothing to do with Copenhagen. Here's what you need to know to understand the fight. It isn't even about bike lanes. It's about public space and who gets to use it and how. On one side are those who believe we should set aside more space for biking (among other things) and a side that doesn't. The side that does has - at least publicly - the buy in of the DC government as well as the regional authorities, and the side that doesn't has the power of the status quo. This is a fight similar to like a million others and you don't have to go to Europe to understand it. One side wants change for reasons we agree are good and the other side doesn't want change for reasons they're embarrassed to admit. 

Paul Dougherty, a resident of the Spring Valley neighborhood, called Copenhagen “a bicyclist utopia”

Not necessarily true, but the downside is...?

...that was unrealistic for the District.

This is bad faith argument. The goal is not to become Copenhagen anytime soon. If everything in the MoveDC plan were put in place and the entire Capital Trail Coalition plan were built, we wouldn't be Copenhagen. There is literally no plan to move that far on any timeline. 

Dougherty is leading a group of residents opposed to converting two lanes of the Dalecarlia Parkway into bike lanes.

You can read Dougherty's petition at (more like amiright?). He's got 600+ signatures as of this writing. His opposition stems from:

  1. As he sees it, people don't want them. Or at least people who live near him don't.  
  2. Bike lanes will slow down ambulances. "The hospital now enjoys a clear, direct, approach for these vehicles which under the Study will require vehicles to at least cross the bike and pedestrian lanes."
  3. Dalecarlia Parkway is a Parkway with a 40 MPH speed limit. Bikes that travel at 20 MPH should not be sharing the road with cars doing 40 MPH
  4. major traffic congestion along Dalecarlia will not help the back-up during the morning or evening rush hours. 

Let's look at these one at a time. There's no proof that (1) is correct and even if it is, not wanting something is not a good enough reason. That's the logic of a 6 year old. On (2), here's what DDOT says

DDOT has shared the draft recommendations from the Livability Study with Sibley Hospital, and they have no concerns at this time. They have requested that DDOT notify DC FEMS and private ambulance providers. DDOT will continue to update Sibley Hospital as the project progresses.

For (3), that's literally what the bike lanes are for?

On (4), ding ding ding, we have a winner! Like I said, this is about public resources (space) and who gets to benefit from it. Paul would like people who want to drive 40 mph without traffic congestion to benefit. DDOT wants people who will bike to benefit. Which makes sense because as a city, we've already set goals to have more people bike and fewer people drive. 

Back to Milloy

People at the meeting were saying to Cheh, a bicycle enthusiast (the opponents claim they're bike enthusiasts too, so everyone's a bike enthusiast) who chairs the transportation committee, “ ‘We’ve been to Copenhagen, and D.C. is nothing like Copenhagen,’ ” Dougherty recalled.

Yeah. "Copenhagen is spectacular and this town is a real shithole. Do you thing the morons in this room could build a city half that nice? No way! We shouldn't even try. Didn't we all move here BECAUSE this place is a dangerous shithole?" 

But seriously, this is how it always goes. Person A: "I saw something nice in xxx" Person B: "well this isn't xxx and we're incapable of learning from anyone else's experience" Person A: "Oh, we are" Person: "Game. Set. Touchdown." (<- This is intentional). 

Milloy then points out the Denmark and Copenhagen started out from a better place than we have probably at any time in the last 120 years - and that's true. I push against other bike advocates for the same reason. We can't just magically become Copenhagen overnight. We are starting from another spot and have to make our own path. But... that doesn't mean we aren't aspiring to the same thing, or at least something similar. That doesn't mean we should act as though Copenhagen doesn't exist or that their grits cook faster than ours or something. 

While more D.C. residents are moving away from cars toward public transportation, scooters and, yes, bikes, the truth is that we are still far from having an infrastructure to support all those things on the roads and pedestrians.

If only there were some way to fix that. Like maybe the infrastructure will come here on its own if we all sit real quietly.

The problem is, the Dalecarlia Parkway serves as a commuter gateway in and out of Maryland and Virginia, with links to Chain Bridge Road and the Clara Barton Parkway.

I agree, that is a problem, but if we shut it down entirely people will get REALLY angry. meant that it's a major regional commuter route and a road diet here would inconvenience some drivers. Oh...OK. Then my answer is "I don't care." We need to change the transportation system. We need to make it safer, more equitable and cleaner. We need to make a system that lets everyone who wants to bike and walk, safe to do so. And to do that we have to take space from drivers and we need to make driving less convenient. On the upside, it will also make driving safer and reduce pollution in your neighborhood. So it's really a win-win.

“Dalecarlia was designed to keep traffic from our neighborhood streets,” said Alma Gates, a longtime resident of the District’s Palisades neighborhood. “When you shut down two lanes of the parkway, traffic is going to start coming through the neighborhoods and that will pose a huge safety concern for us.”

Actually....Dalecarlia Parkway was partially built on a bicycle route that was built by cyclists (using their own money and labor) in the late 1890's. And then road was built to provide access between Western Avenue and Conduit Road. Not that it matters. What matters is that there is no credible scenario where this road diet causes traffic to redirect through either Spring Valley or the Palisades. That's just hogwash. 

But also....If you don't want cars in your neighborhood...if they're a problem...we can do something about that. 

Residents complain that the city was taking action without their knowledge or rushing to implement policies before citizens could organize in opposition.

This was part of the Rock Creek Far West study that began in early 2019. A bike facility was in the MoveDC in 2014 and in the 2005 bike plan. It might have been in the bike plan from the 1976 for all I know. It's all on the web. There is no rushing or hiding. You're writing this about a PUBLIC MEETING where the councilmember showed up!!!

Copenhagen is working in cooperation with 17 other municipalities in the capital region of Denmark to build a network of “cycle superhighways.” The plan is to make fast and comfortable routes from the suburbs to the city center. Cooperation for a project like that does not exist in the Washington region.

You'd be excused for not knowing about this, but such a project does exist. It was reported about in a little local paper called the Washington Post

Forty years. Patient, deliberative, one step at a time.

Courtland Milloy must be the only person who thinks DC is moving too fast at building out it's bike network. In 1974 they set the goal of 30 miles of bike lane, which they didn't achieve until ~2010. "One step at a time" is our jam. And by time we mean months and months. Same writer, two paragraphs later:

By 2025, Copenhagen expects to have 75 percent of the trips in the city made by foot, bicycle or public transit. In the District, the goal is to have 10 more miles of bike lanes by 2024. But the plan is behind schedule 

Maybe we need more patience. 

The problem in D.C. is that we aren’t seeing the big picture,” said Thomas Smith, a resident of the Spring Valley neighborhood. “Decisions are being made one street at a time without regard for how it’s going to affect the next street. Nobody is looking at the whole city.”

Oh FFS Thomas. Really? Really? Again: Bike plan in 2005. Comprehensive Transportation Plan in 2014. The city has a comprehensive plan, which it updates often. We have regional plans. We've got plans Thomas. We've got plans. [Thomas Smith use to be on ANC 3d and lost his election.  He opposed the New Mexico Ave bike lanes making claims about the damage they would do that never came true.]

opposition to more lanes continues to mount.

“Copenhagen is a thousand-year-old flat peninsula with lots of roads everywhere,” Dougherty said. “In D.C., everything is up. There is no comparison.”

There is opposition and repeating these bad faith arguments as if they're anything other than what they are doesn't help. 

When the Subway put the city back together

Screenshot 2019-11-17 at 11.24.47 PM

Metrorail as planned in 1969

December 9th will mark the 50th Anniversary of the groundbreaking for Metro. Before that happened, the Post ran an article on Nov 19, 1969 about what the Metro would mean for the region. That article was entitled "When the Subway Puts the City Back Together" by Joe Andrson. While this is a bit off topic, 1969 could also be viewed as the starting point for the modern bicycle movement in DC, making biking and the subway littermates of sorts, so I hope you'll indulge me a bit.

On Dec 9, 1969, Secretary of Transportation John Volpe and several local officials did the traditional shovel and hardhat ceremony at Judiciary Square marking the beginning of work on the Metro. Until a week earlier, the groundbreaking was to be at Lafayette Park where President Nixon would throw a switch on an earth auger to dig a small hole that would become an air vent for the Metro system, but one week out the White House asked to move it and at the last minute Nixon pulled out, but he did sign a bill earlier that day that would fund the full system.

The construction was one of the most disruptive events in Washington travel - which at the time was pretty much driving, bus or walking - and to some extent aided in the rise of cycling. The city was already congested, and the construction was only making it worse. How to get around in such a mess? By bicycle of course. 

The November 1969 Post article is more hopeful than dreary, but it has a bit of both. It's concerned about traffic and businesses that will go under when customers can't get to them (and both of those happen), but it also talks about a building boom along Metro corridors, economic growth, a chance to experiment with planning and building design, jobs, "high rise apartments and office centers in the ghetto", suburban job opportunities for urban dwellers and faster/easier transportation. Many of which also happened. 

There were so many stories of businesses that were impacted by the work. Many merchants were upset that they were losing vault space - areas below the roads that their basements extended into - and Woodward and Lothrop lost their pedestrian tunnel beneath G Street that connected their two stores, as well as a corner of their store for an entrance. Metro had to tear down a lot of buildings, because it was just cheaper than shoring them up, especially around Metro Center. One building even hosted the Secret Service training school. In 1969, they planned to take part or all of 480 businesses and 520 dwellings. 

At the time they thought Metro would be running by 1972 - but it wouldn't open until 1976. Interestingly, they state in the article that Metro has plans for a pedestrian tunnel between the two Farragut stations - something that is still just a plan - though the system was designed without long tunnels that attract "muggings and urination."

Several years ago, a Post writer posited that only two things connected everyone in the region - Metro and the Washington Football Team - and now maybe that's not true anymore. But Metrorail did help put the city, still recovering from the 1968 riots, back together. And now, you can take your bike on Metro any time you want to. 

What's the deal with the Roosevelt Bridge?


If you've ever biked or walked across the Theodore Roosevelt bridge, you've probably wondered how the hell we ended up with such a weird bridge sidewalk. I'm here to tell you the story and it's a bit crazy. 

First of all, for those unfamiliar, the Roosevelt Bridge has a 6 ft. wide sidewalk on each side. The north side sidewalk is the usable one, as it connects the Kennedy Center to the Mt. Vernon Trail, while the south side one connects to the E Street Expressway (and then via a substandard sidewalk the intersection of 23rd and Constitution Ave) in DC with...well nothing. It just dead-ends on the Virginia side (though a desire path seems to indicate that SOMEONE is using it).

Screenshot 2019-11-14 at 10.23.06 PM

The most obvious question is

Why doesn't the downstream walk connect to anything on the Virginia side?

To answer that question we have to talk about how the bridge ended up with sidewalks. 

The design presented to the Fine Arts Commission in 1959 included sidewalks on both sides. These sidewalks ended at stairs that would lead down to Little Island (the southern part of Roosevelt Island) on the downstream and Roosevelt Island on the upstream. This would create a pedestrian connection from DC to the Islands where the Monument would go, which DC's Bureau of Roads wanted. The DC Department of Highways, on the other hand, didn't want them included, fearing they would encourage people to run across the highway. Furthermore, sidewalks weren't allowed on Interstates. The two struck a deal to include only the upstream sidewalk and a 2'4" wide maintenance walk on the downstream side. The purpose of the maintenance walk was for workers to get on the bridge or drivers of broken down cars to walk off. It wasn't really for transportation. The upstream sidewalk was preferred as a connection because it would give access to Roosevelt Island, though some preferred the downstream walk for the views, but upstream won out. Planners were able to get a waiver to include sidewalks along an interstate and they resubmitted the design to the FAC.

But the Fine Arts Commission overruled them arguing that the bridge would look lopsided without equal sized sidewalks (same reason for this sidewalk). They forced them to widen the maintenance walk but not to expand its purpose.  Highway officials reluctantly relented. In retrospect, it would have been better if they'd ignored symmetry and forced them to widen the upstream sidewalk to 9 feet. 

FAC also recommended that once the Roosevelt Bridge was opened, that the Memorial Bridge should be closed to commuter traffic. [Oh, what could have been.]

Anyway, that's why the downstream doesn't connect to VA. It wasn't meant to be a transportation path. It was meant to be a way to evacuate or access the bridge. If we ever connect it, as has been planned for decades, it won't be the realization of some long ago plan, it will be an opportunist kluge of a fortuitous aesthetic choice. 

Why are the sidewalks so narrow?

For one, that was kind of the standard of the day when cars were king. In 1955 they narrowed the sidewalks on the Key Bridge to 5'5" to make room for more car lanes and DC was increasing the number of lanes across the Potomac from 12 to 22 because they were going to fix traffic congestion. A plan that worked so well that only a few years later, Nixon's Secretary of Transportation John Volpe and a DC Council Chairman Gilbert Hahn took Nixon on a helicopter tour at rush hour to show him how bad traffic was and to convince him to fund the subway. [Hahn at other times said he'd like to ban all-day parking in the city to increase transit use. Oh, what could have been.]

But also they just expected them to be very lightly used, and not by cyclists. This was before either the MVT or the Rock Creek Trail after all. The only place they thought people would go was to Roosevelt Island - and the bridge across for that across Little River was at the north end of the Island back then making for a long walk. After the bridge opened, they were surprised to find people walking to work at the State Department from River Place (then known as Arlington Towers) in Rosslyn. Frankly, I am too as that required more than a few dangerous road crossings. Not just on the VA side, but on the DC side it required crossing a ramp from I-66 to the Rock Creek Parkway that wasn't removed until sometime after 1980. 

OK, but what about those weird barriers?

The low barriers - you can see them in the photo at top - were not included on the bridge originally.  Those were added in the late 1960's after a driver drove off the bridge and died. They exist to protect drivers from driving off the road, not to protect sidewalk users. Again, no one thought about how they'd feel for cyclists. 

The upstream path wouldn't be connected to the Mt Vernon Trail until 1988, around the same time the bridge to TR Island moved and the trail overpass to Rosslyn was built. Prior to that there was just a simple path along the Parkway which you can kind of see in this photo.

Screenshot 2019-11-14 at 11.04.37 PM

Anyway, all things considered cyclists and pedestrians got lucky. The TR Bridge might not have had any sidewalks had the highway people gotten their way. They might not have connected to VA if the plan for stairs had been retained. We wouldn't have the downstream walk - which I still think we'll utilize some day - if some bureaucrats hadn't found the unsymmetrical bridge wonky (my term).

But it would've been nice if the walks had been wider. And had a barrier like the one on the Mason Bridge. And maybe the stairs would've been a nice addition to what they did. And a little thought into how that downstream sidewalk could've connected would have made that investment better. I have ideas: 

Screenshot 2019-11-14 at 11.15.48 PM

Trail-Adjacent Development in DC*

This past summer, Bisnow had an article about 8 building going up along DC* Trails. The more notable thing about the article is that it is even something to write about. There are so many trails now, and they're so much a part of our city, that it's something people think about and it's something developers, planners and architects think about. 

There are 3 buildings along the Metropolitan Branch Trail, including ones with a bike lobby, and the Eckington Park Building that has closed the Z-curve along the trail for good. For a few months now there's been a detour, and the trail was to reopen at the end of October, but then that was delayed due to rain. From the BAC meeting it sounds like that should happen next week. 

Remember: Once the MBT is reopened, there will be construction fencing on both sides at the north end of Tanner Park, and on the west side of the trail through the park. The temporary Q Street connection will go away so that the permanent connection can be constructed. And finally, the temporary MBT detour on Harry Thomas Way NE, 3rd Street NE, and Randolph Street NE will be removed, but the temporary pedestrian walkway on Harry Thomas Way next to the park will remain until the sidewalk there is rebuilt.

In addition, the Rhode Island Avenue Shopping center will rebuild the trail near the railroad overpass.

The article also highlights 3 buildings along the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail in SW, each of which will build small sections of the trail, and 2 along the CCT (*not the DC part despite the headline). One of those is the Apex site which will build the a section of trail tunnel beneath it and the other is in Silver Spring. 

The [Silver Spring] project will also include the construction of a 500-foot portion of the Capital Crescent Trail along the western portion of the property, between the buildings and the Metro tracks. The developers will create connections to the trail at Fenwick Lane and Apple Avenue and make landscaping improvements

image from

DC to build P Street cycletrack


DDOT issued a response to ANC 6D on the proposed P Street cycletrack and they intend to go forward despite the ANC's concerns. The project, as noted by GGW, is a part of the long-planned Anacostia Riverwalk Trail - connecting the Buzzard Point section to the Washington Channel/Wharf Section. The ANC submitted a list of concerns including the route, the removal of 26 parking spaces, damage to the tree canopy, safety and the process. 

DDOT replied that the route was made necessary by Fort McNair, but that if the Army should become open to a Waterfront trail then DDOT will revisit it. Despite the concern for the mature pin oaks along P, one of the reason the current path was chosen was to avoid damaging them, and their urban foresters confirmed this. 

Most of the negative comments were about parking and DDOT said that it has a role in managing space for the safety of all travelers, not just for storing vehicles, and that the PBL design is the best one for making the road safer. Furthermore, DDOT policy is to only provide residential parking on the side of the street where there are residents, meaning the parking along the Fort side violated this policy. 

DDOT hopes to install the lane by the end of November. No one likes an outcome with disgruntled neighbors, but this is the right call. 


Banner design by

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader