TheWashCycle

BicycleSpace part of one proposal for 5th and I

The wandering bike shop of Mt Vernon Square might find a permanent home.

At the corner of 5th and I streets NW sits a vacant lot that will soon be transformed into what's been called the "gateway" to the Mount Vernon Triangle Neighborhood.

[There are] four possible versions of the future: a residential building with a rooftop pool and daycare center, a hotel with a dog spa, a mixed-use complex with a Yes! Organic Market and a BicycleSpace, and an office building with a YMCA.

The JBG Companies, which are slowly taking over the U Street NW area with an ever-growing number of developments there, proposed a 271-unit residential building with units ranging from studios to increasingly rare three-bedrooms, and with 27 affordable units. The plan also includes a Yes! Organic Market, the local grocer that has opened stores in underserved neighborhoods, and a BicycleSpace, the bike store that was located in Mount Vernon Triangle before moving to 7th Street NW, as well as an independent coffee shop.

A woman riding without a helmet?

A writer to the Post was upset that the Post showed a photo of Lia Seremetis without a helmet riding a bike in DC

This is at least the third time that The Post has pictured a cyclist without a helmet, seemingly condoning this unsafe practice. After at least one of those occasions, a disapproving letter was printed. Yet here it has happened again.

While the article was not about bicycle safety per se, it was still disappointing to see such an image. It was especially disconcerting that the young woman pictured is the organizer, according to the article, of “a monthly city ride . . . that draws hundreds of enthusiasts.”

Let’s get the message straight and send it loud and clear: It is unsafe to ride a bike without a helmet.

Sigh. Just because the Post shows a photo of an activity doesn't mean they condone it [They've also published photos of child soldiers for example]. The letter writer was astounded to see such a photo - and is sure that other cycling enthusiasts are too - despite the fact that many cyclists choose to ride this way and the Post has published them before. Is the Post not allowed to show the world as it actually is? Are they now required to make value judgements about how it should be and only show images that meet with that view? Should they not show photos of protesters arguing because that isn't how they think people should behave? The letter writer should just accept that the Post is not going to force Ms. Serementis to put a helmet on before they photograph her anymore than they will force her to put sunscreen on. 

As to whether cycling is unsafe without a helmet...I'll go with cycling is likely more safe with a helmet than without, but not sure that the helmet is the difference between safe and unsafe. 

Woodrow Wilson high school cycle track

Casey Trees opposes Broad Branch option with bike lanes

From a Post story on the previously reported DDOT plan to rebuild Broad Branch Road. 

the District Department of Transportation is considering an extensive rehabilitation that could include adding a sidewalk and a bike lane. The department is expected to chose between one of four alternatives early next year, the most expensive of which would cost $37.1 million and take three years to complete.

The most ambitious of the plans, Alternative 4, would also add a bike lane and sidewalk for the entire length of the road.

But opponents of the proposed plans are worried about the loss of trees, which could range from 240 to 460, depending on which construction plan is approved.

The EA makes the note that not all of these trees will be lost, but this is the number that will be impacted or disturbed. 

Casey Trees, an environmental advocacy group in the city, argued that Alternative 2, which would add a curb and gutter to the narrow street and extend the retaining wall, would be the best and least disruptive option because it improves the road without clearing too many trees.

“Broad Branch Road,” wrote Maisie Hughes, the group’s director of planning and design as part of the project’s public comments, “is a low speed, local road with scenic views of the park. Alternative Two best maintains the character of this road.”

I think this is a bit short sighted on their part. If Casey Trees really wants to support tree growth then they should support efforts that get people out of their cars and into their bikes. Cars and their exhaust are bad for trees. Still, it looks like support is there for the bike lanes.

At the most recent public hearing in November, about 20 people spoke from a crowd of 80. In the following 30 days, DDOT received 250 more comments, most from neighbors of the road rather than people who use the road simply as a throughway.

Program manager Paul Hoffman said support was divided but that most Advisory Neighborhood Commission and other community groups have come out in favor of building a sidewalk and a bike lane.

The city’s Bicycle Advisory Council came out in support of the bike lane plan, but according to Ellen Jones, the chairman and Ward 3 representative on the council, the issue of tree loss became a sticking point at the public hearing. “There were very strong differences of opinion,” she said.

 “I’m not for tree removal,” said Jones, who lives in Chevy Chase, “but if the outcome that we’re looking for is to make this national park more accessible for people by bike and by foot, that’s a big thing in terms of both quality of life for people who live in the immediate area, as well as accessibility to natural space.”

Jones, who lives a 10-minute bike ride away from Rock Creek Park, rides the route roughly once a month. “There’s not good sight lines, there are pinch points,” she said. “The uphill experience is not a happy one coming out of the park, and yet you don’t really have a choice.”

Like Ellen Jones, I'm much more sympathetic to the pro-tree side of the trees-versus-bike lanes debate than I am to the pro-parking side of the parking-versus-bike lanes debate. The city has good reason to support trees and provide space for trees. But I don't agree that the place to make a stand is against active and clean transportation. Certainly there are places where we can replace these 220 additional "lost" trees that won't limit transportation options or decrease road safety for vulnerable users - and in fact, the EA says that DDOT will do just that:

All trees will be protected during construction or replaced according to DDOT’s Bluebook for Standard Specifications for Highways and Structures - Section 611 Trees, Shrubs, Vines, and Ground Covers.

I bet we could make more space for trees if we took out some curb-side parking elsewhere.

Ridescout provides tools to CaBi users

I don't think Ridescout is "solving" the Dock Block problem, but they are making it easier to adjust to.

With Ridescout integration, users can now allow the app to alert them in real-time when docks are full and when they've reached 25 minutes of their 30 free minutes of use. "No more overtime on the bike. No more dock block," Kopser said. "We'll reroute you to the next closest station to your destination."

You can run over a pedestrian, but don't disturb my flight

I first complained about this on twitter in response to stories that Congress wanted to ban in-flight calls on airplanes for reasons of comfort.

“Simply put, the flying experience in the United States would be forever changed for the worse if voice calls are allowed on flights,” added Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

Whatever you might think about that*, it does seem odd that their is a panic about banning phone calls by passengers on airplanes, but no urgency for banning phone calls by drivers of cars. Someone pointed out that traffic laws are not in the federal perview the same way that transcontinental flights are. Fair enough - though congress did use a pretty big stick to get states to raise their drinking age and they could do the same here. But now we have local officials weighing in on this. 

[Vincent] Orange found time to introduce a resolution that would discourage using cell phones in planes while in the air. It is very appropriately titled "Sense Of The Council Discouraging In-flight Cell Phone Calls Resolution Of 2013."

So, banning in-flight phone calls for reasons of comfort is important, but banning phone calls by drivers is not. Because we all know what is really important.

*Personally, I think this is stupid. You're allowed to use your cell phone on the train, but we don't end up with a train full of people talking on their cellphones such that riding the train is hellish. And I've never sat next to someone carrying on a five hour phone coversation on their phone. So the fear is totally unfounded.

And you could just as easily end up sitting next to two people "jabbering" for a long flight. Are we going to ban non-cell phone coversations too? I was once seated on a plane behind Kirsten Dunst and her "entourage" and had to listen to them drone on about Halloween party planning and which shoes are best to wear while shopping, but I never thought "This is disturbing my flight and it should be illegal!" People should be courteous and we really don't need a law to enforce that. If so, can we start with when it is and is not appropriate to lean your seat all the way back?

What about someone who is not jabbering for 5 hours, but is making an important 5 minute phone call for work or to a spouse or their kids. Isn't that a more likely type of phone conversation on a plane and thus the kind that we'll actually be banning? 

But this part has nothing to do with biking. 

It's a Christmas Bikeshare miracle

McCartney for the win

Jimmy Fallon was a great choice to host Saturday Night Live’s Christmas episode, mostly because he loves to sing and was obviously going to do a whole lot of it. In his monologue, the late-night star explained that he was supposed to perform with three of his idols — David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney — but they were all stuck in traffic and couldn’t make it. Knowing that the show must go on, however, Fallon busted out some of his famous musical impersonations to sing their parts.

But then, a twist: as Fallon began to impersonate Paul McCartney, the legend himself appeared on stage. (He beat the traffic by hopping on a Citi Bike.)

To chagrin of crazy people, Alexandria will go forward with bike lanes

Good news

Richard Baier, the city's director of Transportation and Environmental Services, is directing the agency to paint the bike lanes and remove 27 parking spaces along a three-quarter mile stretch of King Street west of the Metro and Amtrak stations.

The car lanes will be narrowed slightly, and a new sign will alert drivers to their speed.

Baier says it will make the road safer for everyone, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians headed to the Metro or to T.C. Williams High School.

The Traffic and Parking Board had recently recommended waiting for a compromise between those who support the bike lanes and others who were concerned about having fewer on-street parking spaces near their homes.

Baier says there is no reason to wait for the changes on King Street between Russell Road and Janneys Lane.

The recently repaved stretch will get a five-foot bike lane on the westbound side, and a four-foot wide bike lane on the eastbound side. Part of the stretch will have shared lane markings, or sharrows, in order to leave some of the parking spots in place that otherwise would have been removed.

The bike lanes should also offer a buffer for pedestrians on the sidewalk from cars speeding by; drivers will still be allowed to stop briefly to drop someone off or pick them up.

From WABA

In the four page letter to residents Director Rich Brier writes, “As a professional engineer tasked with ensuring the safety for all users of our street system and after reviewing the data and researching alternative proposals, I believe that the modified plan is the best plan to achieve the common goals of improving safety and balancing the needs of multiple users of King Street.” Read the letter in its entirely on the City of Alexandria’s website.

The Patch has a lot of comments if you want to get angry. 

Baier wrote that he walked, drove and road his bicycle up and down the stretch of King Street to experience the roadway from all perspectives.

“It was this experience that affirmed by belief that it is imperative to implement a plan that improves the safety concerns highlighted as part of this project,” Baier wrote.

After hearing concerns from residents in the fall, an initial plan that called for the removal of all 37 on-street parking spaces along the stretch of roadway was amended to keep 10 spaces and install bicycle sharrows next to the parking.

Parking counts from city staff determined the vast majority of the on-street spaces go unused.

And a letter in opposition to the plan. A letter which includes this entirely unsubstantiated claim

The proposal would be encouraging all cyclists, including Capital Bikeshare users/riders who are generally inexperienced riders, usually not wearing helmets and not always familiar with bike safety regulations, to use a bike lane

Can we decide that road expansions are bad because they would encourage inexperienced Zipcar drivers to use them?

MBT's Rhode Island Avenue Bridge base complete

DDOT reports

Crews recently completed the foundations and piers that will support the ramp and stairway adjacent to the Metropolitan Branch Trail and CSX railroad tracks. The next step in the construction process is to build the ramp and stairway. This work will continue through January 2014. Please use caution when travelling along the Metropolitan Branch Trail in this area. The project is projected to be completed on time by January 2015. 

Churches still don't like bike lanes

At this week's DC Committee on Transportation and the Environment hearing on the bike plan and bicycle facilities there was one speaker who came not to ask why DDOT hadn't built the facilities it laid out in the bike plan but to ask that they not build one facility at all. 

Dr. Mertyl Bowen pastor of Galbraith A.M.E Zion Church came representing several churches on 6th Street between Florida Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. [You can see her testimony here starting at 01:48:47]. Dr. Bowen is an architectural engineer with many years of experience and chief of the Master Planning division for the United States Army at the Joint Base Myer - Henderson Hall, Directorate of Public Works in Arlington, Virginia

She starts out by noting that these churches have a lot of history in DC, Galbraith has been around for 170 years, Springfield Baptist for 78 years, the House of Prayer for 93 years and First Rising for 79 years. That's a combined total, she points out, of 410 years. [I'm not sure that is really how this works or how that is relevant]. In addition, they own properties on the street and several of their members live on 6th Street.

Not only are their churches old but so are their members. Many are in their 80's, 90's and 100's and they - we are told - can not ride bikes. Therefore, she surmises, bike lanes on 6th are not needed. And why is she against a bike lane on 6th Street NW? The usual...

Our concern is to maintain the existing parking plan that... has been recently updated where we have diagonal parking that provides more parking for individuals [who] live on that street as well as parishiners that are part of those various congregations that may live in Washington DC that drive in.

She suggests that the city look to 9th Street. 9th Street is closer to the "bike stands" that are already there and near the Metro station. And there is not a lot of parking on 9th throughout the week the way there is on 6th. So the city should look to 9th Street instead  - or possibly 7th.

There are several flaws here with Dr. Bowen's suggestion.

1. It's not really an either/or situation. DDOT has said on other occassions that the need is so high for bike lanes in downtown that they would put them on any street where they can find room - so 6th, 7th and 9th. It's matter of finding space. Cyclists are not going to detour to 9th when where they want to be is on 6th. More importantly, there are already bike lanes on part of 9th Street. And on most of 7th. 

2. If by bike stands she means Capital Bikeshare stations, there are more stations on 6th than there are on 9th. 

3. There are three Metro station entrances on 7th Street and none on 9th. So putting the bike facility on 9th moves it away from Metro. 

Later she adds that

We have several individuals who take Metro in, but they are not biking to our congregation.

As if these congregations are the only entities on 6th or the only destinations for which cyclists would use a bike lane on 6th. People at her church don't bike - therefore bike lanes are not needed in front of her church. 

Once again, this is about one thing and one thing only. They have free, on-street parking and they don't want to give it up for bike lanes that they won't use. If it weren't for the fact that this exact same argument worked for Metropolitan AME on M Street, I would think that no one could make it with a straight face. David Grosso tells her that she makes a good point and that we should look at 7th Street. I guess we need to find businesses and people who have lived on 6th Street for a combination of years greater than 410 who support a bike lane there.