No peds no bikes

Photo by Michael D.

Sign on Broad Branch Road in DC where a bridge was washed out and rebuilt over Soap Stone Creek.  So much for their complete streets policy.

Comments

[JJJJJ]

How legal is that sign?

[Angelo]

Is this planned to be permanent?

It looks like a short bridge; do they offer any justification for the No Bikes No Peds with stop signs (i.e. low speeds), or just it's too hard for motorists to avoid hitting anything smaller than their vehicle?

[John]

(Apologies if this becomes a double post - the first try seems to have been eaten.)

They've put up a temporary one lane bridge to keep Broad Branch open while they work on a permanent fix for a washed-out culvert. See http://ola.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/News+Room/Temporary+Bridge+Now+Being+Installed+to+Facilitate+Reopening+of+Broad+Branch+Road,+NW

I'm not sure why pedestrians and bikes are prohibited - once you get beyond the temporary bridge, it's Broad Branch as usual (and, indeed, with less traffic right now). Interestingly there doesn't seem to be a corresponding sign at the other end, where cyclists are heading downhill and can pretty easily match traffic speeds.

[mrs. satan]

the sign is there because this culture is so un- and mis- educated. formal and informal education are so pithy in 2001 that this type of bureaucratic response is all we get. and we deserve this stupidity is some measure.

he issue here is legal liability. read ullrich becks' "risk society." if one is a committed fan of democracy, then we need tort reform in the usa...yesterday!!

of course, rules made for morons are easily circumvented: as for this bridge, ignore the signh. ride across. i have several times. and will continue to do so...

after all, its july fourth! act like the patriots would have...ignore stupidity and have the courage to act against it when need be. oh, i forgot...im the only person who takes seriously the lessons and inspiration of all the monuments we have around town...

[washcycle]

Angelo, as John said, it's not permanent. The feeling is that the bridge is too narrow to safely accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Drivers take turns crossing. This is no different than the bridge across the RR tracks that forms part of the interim Georgetown Branch which seems to function safely with bikes and peds. Cyclists are ignoring the sign from what I've heard.

[Michael D.]

On the way home from work last week 2 DOT staff wearing DOT badges were standing at the south end of the bridge. So I stopped to ask them what the deal was. They explained DOT has told them bikes and peds can't cross the bridge because its unsafe. Apparently they are stationed at the bridge to inform people not to cross and make sure traffic is one way during rush hour. I spoke with them for maybe 7 or 8 minutes in that time 2 joggers and at least 5 bikes crossed the bridge heading in both directions.

I was under the impression the temporary bridge would be replaced in August or September. The DOT staff said said the temporary bridge could be there a lot longer than that.

They also said Park Police might be writing tickets soon and pointed out the double fine sign (you can't see it in the attached photo). I asked when that would happen and they said they did not know, but it could happen. So I was kind of on notice that I might get a ticket if I tried to cross in the future. I'd like to know if the police intend to ticket. I'm not sure its Park Police jurisdiction, but that's what they said. I'm not interested in arguing with the Park Police.....

The DOT staff said it was unsafe for bikes to cross the bridge because it was not wide enough for a car and a bike. I pointed out there are many other one lane bridges across the country that don't bar bikes.

Then another cyclist pulled up. She pointed out barring bikes violates violates federal law if the road received any federal funds. I'm not sure where the funds come from, but it was a good point.

I worry this is a decision DOT made after some consideration and it could be an indication of how they plan to treat bikes under the new DOT head.

[SJE]

This is a terrible sign.

It is in national park, right next to a pedestrian and biking trail and, by closing that bridge to bike/peds, there is no alternative route unless you climb up a steep hill, and travel for several miles. If anything, the road should be closed to cars, not bike/peds.

If there is no way to accomodate all users, then users need to take turns.

Of course, I wouldnt recommend doing what I saw on Friday: cyclist just blew through the stop sign, against a car already on the bridge, and forced the car way way to the side.

[SJE]

Washcycle: I agree re the the one lane bridge along the G'town trail, in my neighborhood. It has been used for decades, and shared by cars, peds, and bikes. It is the essential link between two neighborhoods divided by the CSX line.

[Wayne Phyillaier]

The one lane Georgetown Branch Trail bridge is featured at http://www.silverspringtrails.org/?p=14
It has been operating safely for over 90 years.
It is a totally unbalanced transportation policy for DDOT to ban bikes and peds while allowing cars to proceed without stopping during rush hours on the bridge over Broad Branch. Being "temporary" is no excuse - it shows that DDOT has a terrible attitude about traffic modes other than motor vehicles.

[SJE]

Wayne: I agree. It might be more defensible if this happened on one street in the city, where there were multiple alternatives, and not next to a park, and where there are no alternatives.

Note also the reasoning: that there is no room. There is no room for a bike and car on many roads. Do they intend to ban bikes through RCP?

[krickey7]

I'd say the NPS needs to look at the charter for Rock Creek Park to see if bikes or cars fit it better.

[NeilB]

I don't understand what they mean by "no room for bikes". If traffic from the two ends of the bridge is coming to a stop and then taking turns crossing, why can't bikes be part of that alternating traffic flow? Why does the bridge have to be wide enough for both a car and a bike if only one vehicle proceeds at a time?

[JJJJJ]

Yeah the not wide enough makes absolutely no sense.

If its not wide enough for a car and bike to cross together...then great, take turns.

[antibozo]

Bikes use less space than cars, so if the bridge is not wide enough for a car and a bike, obviously only bikes (and pedestrians) should be permitted to use it. I'll bet it can accommodate several bikes side by side, as a matter of fact. The side should read, "NO CARS". :^)

[SJE]

They could have saved themselves a whole head of money by making the bridge just wide enough for a ped and a bike.

[Shawn]

If ticketed, will bicyclists and pedestrians have a good case, such as under that federal funds stipulation mentioned by Michael D.?

[SJE]

Washcycle: can you post this over at GGW? There might be some additional ideas.

[Jonathan Krall]

Once again the NPS is valuing automobiles over people. It's time to take the parks away from the NPS and give them back to the people.

[John]

There is, by the way, a matching sign at the north (downhill-bound) side. When I rode through there the other day, the blue shift due to my speed must've obliterated it.