The Oregon Avenue Preferred Alternative no longer includes bike facilities

The FHWA, in coordination with DDOT, is issuing a FONSI for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3 Modified, for the rebuild of 1.7 miles of Oregon Avenue as identified in the Final EA for the Oregon Avenue Rehabilitation project. Unfortunately

Alternative 3 was modified to reduce the typical cross-section for the Northern Section of the roadway in response to public comments regarding impacts on adjacent property owners and tree removal; dedicated bike lanes or shared bike paths are not included in the Preferred Alternative.

Originally Alternative 3 was to be 10 feet wider in the Northern Section and use that to include a 10-foot share-use path. But now it will only include

In the Northern Section, or north of Nebraska Avenue to Western Avenue, the Preferred Alternative would transition to a cross-section width of 33 feet and would consist of two 10-foot travel lanes with curb and gutter, a 4-foot grass strip/tree buffer and a 6-foot sidewalk for pedestrians on the west side, and curbing only on the east side.

So the road is unchanged, but the vegetative strip is narrower and the 10 foot trail becomes a 6 foot sidewalk.

They try to justify the removal of bike facilities to mollify NIMBYs by citing the bike plan.

Although the Preferred Alternative does not include dedicated or shared bicycle facilities, the alternative is consistent with the DC Bicycle Master Plan because it would improve safety along the existing bicycle route by providing a consistent roadway width and stabilizing the edge of pavement

But that is some weak sauce in my opinion.The bike plan represents the best attempt of DDOT to meet the needs of cyclists at the time (2005). When it is doesn't do that, citing it doesn't make that go away. And based on the comments they received (there are 2 pages of names of people who sent in the "Bike form letter" supporting it)*, cyclists very much supported alternative 4.  You can't use an oversight to justify a bad decision. 

Still, this is a small improvement from the current state, which with the exception of a very short stretch of sidewalk north of Moreland Place, currently lacks amenities to serve pedestrians and bicycles at all. But a sidewalk isn't really a bike facility. 

Another good alternative for cyclists was 4.

In the Northern Section, or north of Nebraska Avenue to Western Avenue, Alternative 4 would have a cross-section width of 44 feet and include two 10-foot travel lanes, a 4-foot bike lane, 10-foot vegetated swale, and 5-foot sidewalk on the west side, and a 4-foot bike lane and mountable curbing on the east side. 

Alternative 4 is also the most expensive at $35.3 million. Alt 3 was $30.5 million and the preferred alternative would be $27.2 million. 

I believe the Finding of No Significant Impact is only for the Preferred Alternative, but the other alternatives score almost identically. 

I don't see any signs that there will be more opportunities for public input, so it looks like this is lost opportunity. 

*Rereading my own comment, I'm blown away by it's elegance.

Comments

[DaveS]

One of my main peeves about bicycle advocacy is that too many of its practitioners have conceded too much before they even engage in discussion. How many planning sessions include "I know this won't fly but I wish..." or "While that ideal is good, asking for it sends the wrong message".

Can we have dedicated bicycle space on all roads? Of course not, but that shouldn't limit us from asking for it. Can every bicycle space be fully separated and protected? No, but if we don't ask for it we can't complain if we don't get it.

The "current" bike/ped master plan was released in 2005 after a couple of years of work, and it was intended to be a five year outlook. Now we're in the early days of a process to replace it, and we really need to make sure that the bike/ped statements we make are measured as shortfalls from where we wish we could be in 20 years:

"By 2035 all non-residential on-street parking will be eliminated except where its presence has no significant impact on road, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or traffic."

"By 2025 all traffic controls on the routes identified as components[*] of the city-wide comprehensive non-motorized vehicle priority travel network will favor bicycle travel at 15-20 MPH, including bicycle-only and pedestrian-only signals and cycles."

[*]By 2025 we'll actually have such a network - and to accomplish that we'll reject any street improvements that don't add to it.

[Kolohe]

Maybe they misconstrued the potential negative health effects of a trail on Oregon?

[SteveS]

This was all about the NIMBYs in that neighborhood wanting nothing more than was there. To their chagrin, they had no choice but to accept a sidewalk. This was the choice that will require the minimum amount of change to the existing block, which was the only thing they would accept. A broader perspective ought not be expected.

Not sure there was any way to get any other result here, as there were a lot of residents along the 1.2 miles who didn't even want sidewalks, much less a bike land or shared use trail. Seriously, this part of town does not even want sidewalks because of the potential for all those undesirable pedestrians that might walk up their block.

I would hope that as many cyclists as possible use the new configuration to make these NIMBYs complain incessantly about having to wait behind cyclists so they could drive faster.

As my Chinese-born wife would say, Whah-guy - meaning, "you deserved it,"