The K Street FONSI

The FONSI for K Street is out and, as reported on GGW it appears there will be no bike lanes. The Finding states the following about bicycles.

The proposed modifications to K Street are intended to accommodate multimodal traffic (bus, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian) that currently uses the corridor.

The proposed action would achieve the following objectives:

• Provide efficient travel along K Street for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles;

Alternative 3 would include two 10-foot general purpose travel lanes and a five-foot bike lane in each direction.

The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a 12-foot wide curbside general purpose shared lane with automobiles, during the peak periods. During off-peak hours, the curb lane would accommodate bicyclists and parking/loading. Cycle tracks or separated bicycle lanes could not be included with Alternative 2 because of the desire to maintain existing sidewalk widths. The District's Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent parallel streets, Land M Streets. The wider curbside lane would provide approximately two to three feet of accommodation for bicyclists wishing to use K Street during the peak and slightly more space during the off-peak.

The effects of the project on pedestrians and bicycles / pedestrian mobility and safety are not significant either in context or intensity per the CEQ definitions.

It also notes that at the public meetings, desire for bicycle lanes and cycletracks were among the most frequently received comments - though some people wanted bike lanes on I and L.

Comments

[Allen Muchnick]

Does the 12-foot width of the curb lanes include the gutter pans? If so, these are only 10-ft to 11-ft lanes.

It's ridiculous to claim: "
The wider curbside lane would provide approximately two to three feet of accommodation for bicyclists wishing to use K Street during the peak and slightly more space during the off-peak.". Such widths are not safely sharable laterally, and bicyclists will be accommodated at all times simply by commanding the full rightmost lane then available for through traffic.

IMO, the Preferred Alternative is superior to designs with either bike lanes or "cycle tracks". The slow travel speeds in the rightmost through lanes are most compatible with bicyclist integration with motorized traffic.

[Contrarian]

Twelve feeet is the absolute worst lane width for cycling. It's narrow enough that most cyclists won't feel comfortable -- as the report says, it's 2-3 feet for cyclists, which is basically no room to maneuver. But it's wide enough that most motorists will feel put out if you take the lane. It's also the exact width under DC law where cyclists no longer have a per se right to take the lane.

Once again, the "engineers" at DDOT have shown that they just can't wrap their minds around the concept of cyclists using the lane. I'd much rather keep the existing 10-foot lanes.

[Washcycle]

I agree. 15 feet would be about the width you need to allow safe passing, at which point you have room for bike lanes. Make it 10 feet and widen the sidewalk.

The real issue is that it is difficult to have bike lanes on a road with lanes that flex from parking to through traffic. The idea here is that cyclists can ride in the door zone or the gutter, depending on the time of day.

[Froggie]

IIRC, 14ft is a defacto standard back home in Minnesota. And yes, Minnesota has the 3-ft passing law.