Oregon Avenue and President's Park South

A couple of projects with limited bike elements to them are soliciting comments.

The first one is the Rehabilitation of Oregon Avenue project. This will rebuild Oregon Ave from Military Rd to Western Ave. The Environmental Assessment is ready for review and accepting comments until July 14th.

Of the three build alternatives, two have some accommodations for cyclists in the northern section from Nebraska Avenue to Western Avenue.

Alternative 3 has a 10-foot wide shared use path on the west side of Oregon Ave

Alternative 4 would have two 4-foot wide bike lanes (possibly painted another color) - with no parking lane

The bike plan shows this road as an on-street bicycle route. About 10-20 bike per hour use Oregon Ave now.

Alternative 2 is a shared roadway option.

Update:  A public hearing for the EA will be held on Wednesday, June 29 from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Chevy Chase Community Center, 5601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015. DC BAC has screen shots of the options.

Which you prefer probably depends on your feelings about various types of facilities, but personally I'm in favor of Alternative 4.

The other project is the President's Park South project that has been mentioned here before, with the biggest element for cyclist being the future of E Street south of the White House. They've had a design competition and have narrowed the entries down to five finalists, which will go on display starting next Tuesday.

Beginning Tuesday, June 21 and running through Monday, June 27, the public is invited to view the project teams’ designs and share their opinions either online or at White House Visitor Center. On June 28, NCPC will host a public showcase of the five submitted concept designs. NCPC’s Interagency Security Task Force will rank the finalists and announce the competition winner on July 7, 2011.

The public showcase will be at 12:30 pm on a Tuesday - because everyone is available then.

Comments

[Cap Hill Keith]

I also like the idea of two 4 foot bike lanes on the road. I love that stretch of Oregon Ave. It has very fun roller coaster hills.

If they don’t have space for both sides to have four feet on stree lanes they could do four feet on the uphill parts and sharrows on the downhill’s.

There already is a shared use trail in the woods right now and it is not safe to ride on. Between being covered with the forest debris and poor design I only see the occasional walker on it. for b

[Crickey7]

I have fond childhood memories of riding the narrow trail that "parallels" this road, and missing a hairpin turn or two. Lucky there were huge oaks to catch me.

[SJE]

Oregon is a natural connector between parts of RCP, and is a nice hilly ride. I think that any upgrading will have to consider the shoulder areas, which often have a lot of debris.

[Angry Parakeet]

I am a new commuter to that part of town and really like the parallel path in the woods, although once the daylight grows scarce it would be too dangerous. It's been recently repaved, has a great bridge, and trees have been cut back (there must have been huge damage in the last year to pull all those trees down.)

[Daniel]

As a cyclist, and as a resident of the neighborhood (but not oregon ave) I urge you to be selfless. Do you think it is fair for long time tax-paying residents of Oregon Ave to have their front yards considerably reduced just so bikers can enjoy more than ample space on just one of the many great cycling roads that the area has to offer? Next time you drive or bike down Oregon, look at the houses front yards and consider the people that live there. Option 4 is selfish to cyclists. We need one bike lane at most. I'd be happy if we got none, as there is already a trail in the park.

[Ron Alford]

@Daniel: You don't seem to understand the needs of transportational cycling. We're not just looking for 'great roads,' we're looking how to get from place to place safely and quickly.

Looking at the map, this looks like a fairly important north-south route for cyclists who wish to avoid the drama-prone Beach Drive. The houses are well set back from the road - they aren't losing much of their lawn.

From both pedestrian and cycling perspectives, I think option 4 is the most attractive. The sidewalk has a nice separation from the road (good for kids and dogs), and there won't be cyclists passing you every three minutes.

[washcycle]

Daniel, I'm sympathetic to your appeal to our altruism. But I'd like to make a few points. 1) Many cyclists are also long-time tax paying citizens. 2) Surely not every resident along Oregon Ave has lived there a long time. Is it OK to reduce their front yard? What's the cut off? 5 years? 3) That isn't really their front yard. It's DDOT owned right of way. In fact DDOT owns on average 75 feet of ROW, but they only want to use 49 feet of it for the widened road. 4) Is it fair that some residents get to use DDOT ROW for their front yard, even though they don't pay property tax on it? 5) In your mind, how does the right to use public ROW as private property compare to the need to create complete streets where all users feel welcomed and safe? 6) For me "safety first" is just that. Safety should be the first concern, and the right of people to co-opt public land should come second.

[JeffB]

As a cyclist, and as a resident of the neighborhood (but not oregon ave) I urge you to be selfless.

Ok - since you're a cyclist too and obviously don't have some conflict of interest not living there and all.

Do you think it is fair for long time tax-paying residents of Oregon Ave to have their front yards considerably reduced

I don't. Good thing this project only uses *PUBLIC* land in the right of way - for which residents HAVE NOT been paying taxes on.

Next time you drive or bike down Oregon, look at the houses front yards and consider the people that live there.

Will do. I even hope to, in the near future, wave hi from the bike lane. It'll give me just the opportunity I've been looking for to get to know more of my neighbors.

Option 4 is selfish to cyclists.
Rejecting Option 4 in order to continue to use public land for private use is also selfish.

I'd be happy if we got none,
Sure you would. 'Cause you're a cyclist too and don't live there ;)

Finally - listen up everybody. The Mall has often been described as America's front yard.

Well this Monday I plan on hosting a private gathering and I'd appreciate it everybody would STAY THE HELL OFF OF MY LAWN!

[Jeff Carlson]

Jeff B:

Public land? Haha there are several properties that own land all the way to the street. It's unfair to go eminent domaining from these people so a bunch of lance armstrong wannabes in their lame looking suits can enjoy one road.

[Steve]

Why can't they eminent domain that shit from Rock Creek Park? They got acres on acres.

[washcycle]

Jeff Carlson, that isn't correct. On page S-2 of the EA they point out that there would be only two encroachments on non-DDOT land. One from NPS and one where they would need to cross a privately owned driveway.

"Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the continuity of sidewalks or trails and
drainage facilities would require an easement to cross this 63‐foot stretch of private driveway.  
Notwithstanding these exceptions and the placement of silt fences and restoration of outfalls
during construction, there are no other physical components which would require use of lands
within Rock Creek Park or on private property for any of the alternatives"

[JeffB]

@Jeff Carlson,

there are several properties that own land all the way to the street.

You know that for a fact? What are the addresses?

It's unfair to go eminent domaining
You know that for a fact? You do understand that this project only discusses using the public right of way. You do understand how the plats are set up in this (and every) city and town in America. Right?

[Ron Alford]

Is this angst against just option 4? Because option 3 is only a foot narrower.

But what's funny is that most of the additional space is to put the sidewalk away from the road. Maybe the critics will start referring to joggers and dog walkers as "marion jones wannabes."

[Jeff Carlson]

5738, 5742, and 5750 all own almost every inch of land to the street, pal.

[Jeff Carlson]

Look it up, bud.

[JeffB]

so a bunch of lance armstrong wannabes in their lame looking suits can enjoy one road.

Oh - and bonus points for your argument there!!!!

[washcycle]

5738, 5742, and 5750 all own almost every inch of land to the street, pal.

True. But they don't plan to take any of their yards. Page B-29. Look it up stranger.

[krickey7]

Like I said, I grew up quite near Oregon Ave. The old path was one of my first bicycle commuting routes. I'm sure every parent around his area would prefer a safer route for young cyclists--as we all once were--to get around this area. In addition, you should examine the history of rails-to-trails. The plans were often bitterly opposed by nearby property owners until they were actually constructed, and then they became a valuable amenity. As a presumed property owner, you ought to appreciate that.

[JeffB]

Don't have to buddy. I prefer to use official sources before I blow off steam in a blog.

From the linked study, Page S-2. Emphasis is mine.

Each alternative remains within DDOT‐owned right‐of‐way with two minor exceptions.  There is one small section of the existing roadway where approximately 100 feet of the northbound lane lies within NPS‐owned property (see Station 114 – 115 on pages B‐4, B‐16, and B‐28 in Appendix B).  This 
encroachment is the result of inconsistencies in survey bounds that existed when the current 
Oregon Avenue was constructed.  This EA will cover the appropriate action needed from NPS to 
correct this inconsistency, which may include an easement, land transfer, or permit.  The second 
minor encroachment is located at the base of a private driveway (see Station 154 on pages B‐21 
Summary
and B‐33 in Appendix B). 

TO THE SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER whose driver is somehow impacted. One mega helmet tip from this Lance Wan-a-be!

[JeffB]

not driver ... driveway!

[Jeff Carlson]

You're a bad parent if you want your "young cyclists" in a bike lane alongside a road. There is a bike trail in the park, and that is how it should be. Use that trail, they can even make a new one. As Steve earlier said, "Why can't they eminent domain that shit from Rock Creek Park? They got acres on acres."

[oboe]

@Jeff Carlson,

It's unfair to go eminent domaining from these people so a bunch of lance armstrong wannabes in their lame looking suits can enjoy one road.

This just steams my biscuits. There's no reason to engage in disrespectful argumentation and name-calling.

The correct term is "arrogant Lycranauts", thank you very much.

[Crickey7]

I'd be interested in seeing how any recent work on the trail changed what I remember. It always was a fine path to use as long as you were prepared to go slowly and take a number of the turns at a walking speed. And, of course, if no one else were on the path. So it's a multi-use path, not a bike trail, with all the flaws of that type of trail for cyclists.

To the unwary, or to those looking to make a little time, I recall it being fairly unforgiving. I wasn't exaggerating about missing the turns a few times.

[SJE]

To the "Dale Earnhart wannabees" there is a big difference between a multiuse trail and a bike lane, akin to the differnce between a scenic route and a highway. One is for pleasure, the other for commuting.

All that said, I would like to see some better shoulders or a path on BroadBranch before they fix Oregon. Its winding and has no shoulder. I was glad to be driving slowly today, with the pedestrians on the road.