« Fairfax Bike Parking | Main | Kingston on Wheels 4 Wellness »


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

Re: K street transitway for cyclists - If they open the dedicated bus lanes to cyclists, then this will be great for us. Unlike the other dedicated bus/bike lanes in the city (7th street & 9th street), K street will be partitioned off, making it much safer as cyclists neednt worry about cars swerving in and out of the dedicated lanes.

Re: Bikeshare program - I'll believe it when I swipe my card at a kiosk in Rossyln. We've been getting the proverbial tugjob on this for quite some time (weren't we supposed to have 100 stations and nearly 1,000 bikes as of like two weeks ago?), and despite its usefulness, this will be ridiculed in congress. I give this a 2-3 percent chance of being realized with stimulus dollars in the next two years, and a 10-20 percent chance of being realized in the next five years if the core cities agreed on a joint plan. I'm sorry, but Americans just don't understand bikeshare (yet).

I might consider pitching these kinds of comments not so much about "smart growth" and reducing the influence of the car, but around creating the kinds of places that people want to go to. E.g., you, (the government) are fucking up because the way that you're developing will endsure no pedestrian traffic (e.g., no jobs--just strip malls). Make that your theme, and you'll find your communications to be more effective.

These are public relations documents. The bean counters will understand what you're saying; the avg WaPo reader will not.

I think that 7 million is closer to 2% of 300 million than it is to the 0.02% that the article claims. You are off by a factor of 100.

The letter is not by me. It's by Eric Gilliland of WABA. So it's not me saying it - it's WABA. I'm not a WABA employee.

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is technically a distinct body from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG).

The connection is that the TPB uses MWCOG offices and facilities, is staffed by MWCOG employees, and *some* TPB members are also members of MWCOG boards and committees.

In other words, the TPB is an independent body and is not another MWCOG committee.

Well, that's confusing. Especially since their website has "MWCOG" on the top and in the name.

Don't we want to increase energy independence?

Yeah, but I think everyone knows what is meant. I doubt WABA's being graded on grammar.

To say zero dollars have been allocated to Northern Virginia isn't completely true. If you look at

That said, the lack of projects on the Virginia side of the Potomac is disconcerting...

That one got hacked up pretty good. Here's what it should have said:

If you look at this PDF:


and PDF pages 156-157 in particular, you'll find a few projects, including a bridge across Four Mile Run and a bike path along Route 110 between the Pentagon and Memorial Bridge.

Also, keep in mind that bike/ped projects are much smaller in scale and don't require as much as a comparable road project to be effective. So you don't necessarily need "a full 4%" of the total to make an improvement in biking and walking.

That said, the lack of projects on the Virginia side of the Potomac is a bit disconcerting...

Froggie, you're right. And so is Eric. There are some projects in the plan that are bicycle and pedestrian projects. But there is nothing in the budget for "Bike/Ped" projects. Bicycle and pedestrian projects (in general) can be paid for through many different means. The projects you point to are paid for by "Transportation Enhancement" money, which can be used for many things including cycling enhancements. But if you look at page 185 where Northern Virginia's financial summary is, you'll see a goose egg for Bike/Ped spending - which is a different pool of money. There are probably bicycle and pedestrian projects that will be paid for with CMAQ, bridge, urban and other programs (breaking out the actual Bike/Ped money would be quite difficult), but nothing from Bike/Ped.

One example of a project we should push for in NoVA is funding to increase bike presence on VRE. VRE currently can't handle more bikes because of outdated trains, but if a little VRE funding increases people being able to take their bikes on VRE, that would take stress off roads around VRE stations, off parking structures, and off the metro at the other end. Hey, I'd say throw money to metro to have them do the same thing, but with metro as it is, I don't see them improving any time soon. VRE at least has recently allowed bikes on some trains, but until they have a lot more bike room on a lot more trains, it won't be nearly enough.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader