TheWashCycle

NY Times helmet article misses the mark

Last month. the New York Times ran an article encouraging helmet use by cyclists that was unfortunate in both its tone and the facts it relied upon. 

On tone, the conclusion, which health writer Jane E. Brody decides to start with is overly harsh. 

Riding a bicycle without wearing a properly fitted helmet is simply stupid.

We don't use the s-word in our house, and if we did, we'd have more to back it up then the "High Priestess of Health" does.  The next line "Anyone who does so is tempting fate, risking a potentially life-changing disaster" could just as easily describe a lot of other activities like driving, walking to the store or taking a shower. Yes, there is risk in riding a bike - perhaps more when riding a helmet - but it may be that, due to the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle not riding a bike for want of a helmet is more risky. 

Let's look at some of her facts. 

Even a careful cyclist is likely to crash about once every 4,500 miles

For this she seems to be relying on the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI) (funded by WABA!). But as Robert Hurst points out in the "Art of Cycling" when Ed Burke repeats the claim, they never define "careful" or "crash" or cite the source for this number. Hurst points out that a 1976 survey of cyclists indicated that they suffered some kind of bicycle crash related injury every 9000 miles, and in a 1996 update to that, LAB determined that experienced cyclists - those with an average of 14 years of experience - wiped out every 30,000 miles. So, I'd take issue with the conclusion about how often a careful cyclist is likely to crash. There's no doubt that cyclists crash, but Brody's willingness to rely on a claim of dubious origin, one she repeats without citation, sets the article off on a disturbing path. But now that it's been in the Times, I expect to see it repeated and repeated, until everyone takes it as "common sense." In fact, even before this article the number had already reached that level of repetition.

But then we get to the main source of her claim about the importance of helmet wearing.

one shattering statistic reported by New York City for cyclists in general stands out: 97 percent of cycling deaths and 87 percent of serious injuries occurred to people who were not wearing helmets. 

In this case she's relying on a 2006 New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and the New York City Police Department study. It is a pretty shattering statistic. It also doesn't mean what she thinks it does. 

For one thing, according to that same study only 74% of all fatal crashes involved a head injury. So somehow not wearing a helmet is also causing deaths that don't involve a head injury.  Even if we assume that every head injury death involved an unhelmeted cyclist (which is a ludicrous assumption), it would mean that 88% of non-head injury deaths also involve an unhelmeted cyclists. And since helmet wearing rates are, by most estimates, higher than 12%, it would somehow imply that cyclists who don't wear helmets are more likely to die from crashes involving head injuries AND those that don't. 

The reason why the percentage is so high, is vast misreporting. As helmet researcher Dr. Richard Keatinge points out:

The figures for dead cyclists are based on the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The forms used by FARS do not in general have a convenient box for recording helmet use, which if done at all is done in free text. Thus data entry does not record helmet use accurately after fatalities, and many deaths where helmets were in fact worn will be recorded as "helmet not used"

And cyclehelmets.org expands on this

California data from the StateWide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) indicates that at least 13.2% of fatally injured bicyclists were using a helmet during the period 1994-98 (since SWITRS combines 'unknowns' and 'not used' into a single category, the helmet use rate is actually a minimum estimate and could be much higher, depending upon the relative number of true 'unknowns' and how biased the distribution might be) (Cal Highway Patrol), but only 3.4% supposedly were doing so according to FARS

Continuing to rely on BHSI, Brody also states that

Head injuries account for three-fourths of the roughly 700 bicycle deaths that occur each year nationwide, and helmets can prevent or reduce the severity of these injuries in two-thirds of cases. This protection holds even in crashes with motor vehicles, researchers from the University of Washington in Seattle reported as long ago as 2000, a statistic verified many times since.

This stat comes from a 1999 review, updated in 2006. But in contradiction to her claim about how often it has been verified, that review has itstead been criticized because the reviewers mostly included studies that were the work of the reviewers themselves, and because they omitted studies that contradicted their own. 

As part of his re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001, Elvik, 2011 considered the same studies used in the Cochrane Review and also more recently published studies. Later studies show no net benefit from helmets with regard to injuries to the head, face and neck.

She then notes that she has, in the past, often ridden without a helmet, but no more because she was in a crash where she was wearing a helmet and hit her head, and those suffering a concussion with memory loss, her "helmet prevented a serious brain or facial injury." Which is a claim she can't possibly back up. We simply don't know what would've happened without a helmet. And if she had a standard bicycle helmet, it's hard to imagine how that would have prevented facial injury. I was in a crash in January, and I suffered a serious facial injury despite the fact that I was wearing a helmet. 

She then promises to "never again mount a bicycle without the helmet on my head where it belongs". That's likely a good idea. But it's a long way from declaring that anyone who chooses not to is "simply stupid." And it's certainly not a reason to advocate for adult bicycle helmet laws, as she seems to do. The rest of the article, about how to buy and fit a helmet is fine, and she would've been better off focusing on that. 

Montgomery Council considering purchase to build Capital Crescent Civic Green

The planning board recently approved the $8.5 million purchase of a 0.4 acre lot along the future Capital Crescent Trail for the creation of a the "Capital Crescent Civic Green" - a new park at the Bethesda trailhead. This occurred after the The Park and Planning Commission negotiated a Land Purchase Agreement to acquire the two parcels using the Advance Land Acquisition Revolving Fund (ALARF).

The Capital Crescent Trail will run along the east side of the civic green, connecting the new trail tunnel on the north side to a protected bike lane on Bethesda Avenue on the south side. The bike lane will cross Woodmont and connect to the existing Capital Crescent Trail south of Bethesda Avenue. 

Sketch of the civic green with the CCT highlighted in yellow

A park on this site is consistent with both the Bethesda Purple Line Station Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment, though that plan had the trail continuing east to Woodmont Avenue. 

It's more fleshed out in the Bethesda Downtown Plan

The Capital Crescent Civic Green is envisioned as the civic green for the Bethesda Row District and the western gateway of the Capital Crescent Trail. It will build on the success of the existing small plaza at the corner of Woodmont Avenue and Bethesda Avenue, and act as an outdoor civic center for the Bethesda Row District.

While some park advocates are concerned it's too small, the County plans to combine it with other land on the other side of Reed possibly increasing the size of the park to 0.6 or 0.7 acres.

There's also a lot of concern that $8.5 million is too much for such a small plot. But while the plot is small, construction of a retail building would’ve been possible on the property, and that property could've been 145 feet high with a FAR of 5.0. What's more

The county expects to recoup a significant percentage of the purchase price from the state in exchange for letting MTA use the site. The county is still working out the arrangement with the state, so the exact amount hasn’t been finalized, Anderson said.

So, that has to be priced in.

Because MTA will likely need to use the site during Purple Line construction, officials hope to build the park following Purple Line completion in 2022. 

The Council is scheduled to take action on this on December 5th.

DC Community supports the Transportation Benefit Equity Act

Back in September, the DC Council's Transportation & the Environment Committee held a hearing on the Transportation Benefit Equity Amendment Act of 2017.

this bill requires certain employers to provide alternate transit benefits (such as access to a commuter highway vehicle, transit, or bicycling benefits) in an amount equal to that of the market value of employer's currently offered parking benefit. Covered employers may opt out of compliance by paying a monthly fee for each employee who is offered parking benefits. The bill also establishes a Fund, the Transpiration Demand Management Fund.

This is basically a parking cash out bill. It would encourage more people to bike, walk and take transit by putting money in the pocket of those who do so. (It would also likely add to DC's tax revenue as any money paid to pedestrians, and most of what went to cyclists, would be taxable). This has been tried in California, on a much more limited scale, and it was found to decrease single occupancy vehicle commutes by 10-12%. There's reason to believe that because DC is so much more transit, bike and walk conducive that it would cause an even larger shift. 

A few years ago, when I was first chair of the legislative committee of the BAC, we made a list of all the legislation that we would change if we could. Then we ranked it all on two axes. One was importance and the other was viability. This ranked high on the importance - in that it would have a large impact - but low on the viability side because we didn't think it could garner Council support (same as we felt about the Contributory negligence fix). So I'm pleasantly surprised to see the bill proposed and supported. And even more pleased to see that t's not just supported by some council members, but at the hearing it was supported by most of the people who testified. 

The support came from transportation and environmental advocacy organizations as well as at least one ANC and several citizens. WABA, the DC BAC and PAC, the Coalition for Smarter Growth,  ANC4C and the US Green Building Council all strongly supported it because of the way it would encourage more walking, biking and transit use. During WABA's testimony, Greg Billing testified that the bill wouldn't cost any business any money - which was a theme and source of discussion throughout the hearing. CM Mary Cheh pushed back, asserting that that wasn't true; but Billing responded that the pay out was optional, in that a business was not required to offer anyone any benefit. This point was echoed by CM Charles Allen, who sponsored the bill and noted that the bill doesn't mandate a benefit. It mandates that when one is offered, that it be equitable. 

Giving commuters more choice in how to get to work has shown to decrease the number of drive-alone commutes by 10-12%, reduce traffic, improve air quality, and promote health and well-being.

Opposition came from two sources. Business organizations opposed it because it would increase the cost of doing business; and social justice organizations thought that most of the benefits would go to rich people who can afford to live close to work. Two positions that seem to be a little bit in contrast to one another. 

Will Handsfiled testified on behalf of the Georgetown BID and argued that it would create new regulatory and compliance burdens adding additional expense to businesses. He stated that the BID supported the goals, but that DC had not exhausted all of its other options for increasing transit and active transportation use. He also said that a better policy would be to get the federal government to end the policy of making parking benefits tax free. DC should do more and the federal government should reconsider the tax-free status of parking benefits by either lowering the maximum or getting rid of it altogether. But, neither of those things is really an argument against the cash out. There probably is an added regulatory burden, but from DC's perspective, it is probably worth it. 

The DC Chamber of Commerce made a similar argument to the BID's but then added some new ones.

They were concerned that some businesses would be burdened with fines, which I'm not too sympathetic with. I prefer it when auditors and enforcers work with out-of-compliance businesses to come into compliance before resorting to fines, but opposing a rule because some of your members will break it is not going to win a lot of supporters.

They tried to argue that it is redundant since the Sustainable DC Act of 2014, and the current state of transit parity in federal parking and transit benefits, already achieve these goals. But neither of those deals with bringing similar benefits to biking and walking.

They argued that it micromanages relationship between employers and employees and takes away employer choice. This is basically saying that this regulation is a regulation.  I mean that's what regulations do.

They argued that it harms those who have already signed leases, but CM Allen said that the law specifically has a carve out for existing leases.

Somehow they argue that it will have a disproportional impact on diverse businesses, small businesses and non-profits, but how they got to that conclusion is unclear. They also brought up customer parking, but Allen pointed out that this bill has nothing to do with customer parking. 

They said the law would run afoul of Cheh's moratorium on employer focused legislation, but Cheh countered that the bill doesn't mandate that employers give anything, only that if they give a benefit, they give it equitably. Allen said that this is about choice and flexibility for the employees, but that a handful of people are telling businesses that this is a mandate, which it is not. 

Finally, the Chamber argued that some people don't live close enough to walk or bike to work, but Allen said that this is why the bill also funds transit. Mic drop.

Another opponent, oddly enough, was the DC Policy Center. They believe that "The bill has good intentions (less congestion, better health, cleaner air), but social injustices will increase as a consequence." Their logic works like this: People who walk and bike are richer than people who drive and take transit. So a policy that gives more money to people who walk and bike will only be giving money to the wealthy, possibly at the expense of the poor. And it will lead to gentrification. Like the Georgetown BID they argue against this policy because it isn't the BEST policy choice (not because it is a bad policy). 

If we truly want to make D.C. a more walkable, bikeable, transit-friendly city, we should start with our broader housing and transportation policies. We should expand D.C.’s stock of affordable housing and promote dense, mixed-income developments along transit-accessible corridors; improve both Metro and bus networks so that they are an accessible and reliable option for all residents. And—in conjunction with these measures—we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists, so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation.

Those are all good policies, but creating more incentives for people to walk, bike and use transit is good policy too. 

They come dangerously close to adopting the line of attack of anti-bike lane forces - that bike lanes bring gentrification

While correlation is not causation, data show us that where you find walkable, bikeable communities, you also find gentrification.

 

Pardon me, but this position is bananas. I generally support the same goals as DC policy center (and Charles Allen noted that he and they were often allied too) but if they're going to become anti-active transportation because it causes gentrification, I suspect that will be less often true. 

Some of their arguments imply that they don't think this will benefit people who ride the bus. 

People who biked to work were also younger (median age 34), but earned more than the median salary ($60,000). Those who took the
bus, on the other hand, were at about the median age (35), but earned less ($32,000). Those who drive earned slightly more than the median
wage ($55,000), but were older (median age, 41). If we were to adjust for age differences, we would find that those who walk and bike to work are richer than those who drive or take the bus. That is why they can afford to live close to where they work.

But since this bill will require more employers to offer transit benefits, it will also help people currently riding the bus who are not getting a transit benefit but who have co-workers who are getting subsidized parking. 

Another line of reasoning they take is that most of the people who drive live in MD or VA and changing their mode of transportation simply isn't an option, and the same is true of reverse commuters or shift workers.

The bill would have little relevance to [drivers who commute from outside of the city]—unless their employers decide to eliminate the benefit—and will do little to change their behavior.

The bill is also irrelevant to the world of reverse commuters.

That's probably true, but to the extent that it reduces the number of solo drivers it will reduce congestion. And to the extent that it moves people to cleaner modes of transportation, it will improve their living conditions. People don't need to change their behavior to benefit. And I'm not sure that arguing that this will benefit DC residents to the detriment of out-of-District workers is a compelling case to make to the DC council. 

But here's where we really disagree.

But beyond investing in infrastructure and improving safety, D.C. Government does not need to favor those who walk or bike to work.

This is not the way DC (or most other governments) have seen it for at least a decade. There are good reasons to favor walking and biking (and transit, they keep forgetting that this is a pro-transit bill) over driving. They even mention the reasons in the beginning (less congestion, better health, cleaner air). It's like they forget all the thing they say up front when coming to their conclusions later on. 

Mary Cheh pushed back against them. She repeated their line that the DC Government "should not favor those who drive" by pointing out that the current system does exactly that by subsidizing parking. Charles Allen also disagreed with their analysis. He said that he'd been trying to meet with them and talk about it, because he disagrees and doesn't think it will lead to less economic justice. 

NspireGreen, a sustainability consulting firm, was mostly supportive, but also worried that the bill will reward rich people who can afford to live close to work. For that reason they specifically opposed the section which will give any benefit, beyond the Bicycle Commuter Benefit limit, to people who walk or bike. Which seems like an odd position for an organization dedicated to sustainability to take. 

DDOT testified last and they support it, but they want to discuss rulemaking, staffing and other important consequences of the bill. 

This bill is a big deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more attention nationally (I guess it's getting lost in the flurry of bigger news). If DC passes this, it will serve as a test case for the parking cash out idea that has been kicked around for years now (CA has one, but it has a lot of limitations). I would have expected national organizations who support or oppose this to get more involved. Maybe they are, but just not in public. But this bill has the potential to be a game changer. I think it's the most important piece of bike and walk commuting legislation to be proposed in the last 20 years; and it's important for transit users as well. If you haven't yet, a letter of support to your Council member or, better yet, to the at-large Council member of your choice can only do good. 

Redesigned I-66 Trail reduces inside-the-wall trail mileage by 40%

Shortly after my last post on the subject, VDOT released an updated design for the I-66 trail. The new design reduces the part that is inside the sound barrier from ~5 miles to 3 miles and it makes some other changes as well. 

The Transform I-66 project, whatever it's downside is, will do a lot to improve cycling and walking in the corridor. The project will add 11 miles of trail with another 7 provided by others. It will improve 11 bridges with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities and add 8 permanent count stations along the trail. 

The main purpose of the new design was to reduce the amount of trail that is inside the sound barrier (ISB). In some cases the bike lane was moved outside the sound barrier (OSB), and in others the sound barrier was removed. In the Fair Lakes area, the long stretch of ISB trail was broken up and reduced and the section near Route 28 redesigned. (Solid Purple is ISB, Green is OSB and Purple with white is no sound barrier). 

Old

New

And the ISB sections were reduced west of Oakton as well

Old

New

In addition, the section near Fairfax County Parkway was realigned. The trail no longer runs along I-66 west of West Ox but instead uses Fair Lakes Parkway and Fair Lakes Circle to connect to the same crossing of Fairfax County Parkway. It may be a shorter route, but how they design this portion (using the interactive map, it looks like a sidepath) will likely determine whether it is better or not. 

Old

New

This doesn't correct ALL the things that should be improved, but it is progress. Still, it means that trail users will have long sections where they're sandwiched between the highway and the barrier, sections that will be loud and dirty. 

Which might be OK, if there were a good reason for this. But the only reason given is that some people didn't like the trails on the residential side. 

VDOT developed the concept plan for the 66 Trail consistent with local jurisdiction trail plans. During earlier public outreach for the project, VDOT received many comments opposed to placing the trail on the residential side of noise barriers in locations where the trail passes near homes. Those comments led to a contract requirement to locate the trail on the highway side of noise barriers in areas adjacent to homes.

Hearings on the latest designs were held mid-month and comments are due on Wednesday. The first construction work on this project will start next month.

 

Final Draft Design chosen for South Park and the Four Mile Run Trail

Arlington County presented the Final Draft Design of South Park at Potomac Yards, a small rectangle of land on the north side of Four Mile Run between Route 1 and Potomac Avenue, formerly known as Land Bank F. The Four Mile Run Trail will pass through the park, and the park will include trail connections to both Route 1 and Potomac Avenue. It will also include bike parking, a trail map, signage and bicycle calming. 

This is basically concept C as presented in the spring and it was the one I preferred because it created a direct and shaded connection between the trail and the street grid. It was also preferred by those who took the survey. Survey participants also preferred the name Luna Park. 

In addition to the trails across the park and the connection between them, the park will include bike parking. Work on the Arlington portion of the park won't begin until 2023 (part of the park is in Alexandria and part is in Arlington because the line didn't move when Four Mile Run was straightened out) but in late 2018, they'll start work on "Phase 1" which will create a trail connection to Route 1 along with turf and plantings. Phase 1 has been modified a little since the spring. The trail connection follows a slightly different route without a transition area in the middle. 

At least two participant at the meeting were concerned with cyclists biking too fast and running pedestrians down (don't do that). Another was worried that a lack of parking for the park would result in people parking illegally (don't do that either). 

Construction progressing along the Jones Falls Trail

Work on the long delayed $8.5 million Phase V of the Jones Falls Trail in Baltimore is currently underway. The section will extend the trail north from Clyburn to the Mt. Washington light rail station, crossing a 400-foot-long bridge built with steel arches, support beams and cable wires over Northern Parkway along the way. This new 4.25 mile long section will also serve as part of the East Coast Greenway. 

 

 

 

Someday the trail will connect to the Gwynn Falls Trail,  BWI Trail and the B&A trail.  While the Jones Falls Trail has its north terminus at the light rail station, the bike-friendly train connects to Hunt Valley, where the Torrey Brown trail commences about a mile from the station.  That portion of the ECG goes to York, Pa. and beyond as the Heritage Rail Trail. 

 

Here are some construction photos taken near the Mt. Washington Light Rail Station this month

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Tax Plan would repeal the bicycle commuter benefit

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has moved from the House to the Senate, and so last week Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) released the “Chairman’s Mark” to the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This much-anticipated amendment includes a number of important changes to the tax plan, including fitting the package within the constraints imposed by the Senate’s so-called “Byrd Rule,” which places limits on what can be adopted under the reconciliation process.

One part of this amendment is to repeal the federal bicycle commuter benefit. The quick and dirty history of this is that Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) had long advocated for a bicycle commuter benefit to more fairly treat cyclists considering the parking and transit benefits other workers get. In a cruel twist, the idea, after being rejected numerous times, was watered down and added to the ??? bill in an effort to get Blumenauer's vote (it didn't). So it went into law in 2009. As written, it allows an employee to exclude up to $20 per month in qualified bicycle commuting reimbursements. This has to be a benefit explicitly for bike commuting, and employees can't set their own money aside pre-tax. Nor can they combine it with the transit or parking benefit. So, I suspect it has few takers (Full disclosure: I'm one). 

Blumenauer has advocated for making the benefit better, like allowing you to use it for bike share, increasing it, allowing commuters to put in their own money pre-tax and/or allowing commuters to get it in combination with another benefit (just like they can get both parking and transit if they want); but none of that has gotten anywhere.

No one, as far as I know, has done a study of how much it costs or what the effect of it has been. It was originally expected to cost $1M a year. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that it costs no more than $5M a year, which (by my math) would mean that ~63,000 people are getting the full $240 benefit (and that they would have been paid that money even without the carve out - a dubious claim).

I can't easily assert that it induces more people to bike commute (though that's how both parties normally talk about taxes, that they effect behavior). And I have no idea what it really costs. So without knowing either the costs or the benefits, it's impossible to say if it's worth it. Perhaps we should figure some of those things out before we call it a failure and quit.

Pentagon Master Plan suggests new sharrows, showers and bike parking

The Department of Defense has submitted an updated Pentagon Master Plan to the National Capitol Planning Commission for their approval. The new master plan is intended to improve security, enhance the quality of life for employees, and address accommodations for visitors to the Pentagon and to the other public facilities located on the Reservation grounds. Naturally, it deals pretty heavily with transportation, and thus cycling and was created in coordination with a Transportation Management Plan. In recognition that "the Pentagon is... located in a busy urban environment that is more dependent on transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation than ever," and new direction from the DOD's 2012 sustainability goals and Facilities Criteria, the plan suggests several ways to make the Pentagon more bicycle friendly. The main tools they settle on are sharrowed routes connecting to the nearby trails, employee shower facilities and more bicycle parking. 

The Master Plan Update improves the overall pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the Pentagon Reservation by connecting the external trails surrounding the Reservation with routes on the Reservation in order to provide Pentagon employees a clear and direct route from the external trails to the employee bicycle racks and pedestrian entrances on the
Reservation.

In the figure above, it's hard to tell the sharrowed routes from the bike lanes, but basically all the bike lanes are on Arlington roads and the bike facilities on Pentagon property are sharrows. 

What's surprising about this reliance on sharrows is that one of the problems the Plan Update makes note of is the "lack of painted bike lanes," and then they proceed to add zero bike lanes.  The North and South Rotary Roads will also have signage. 

A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) was prepared in parallel with the Master Plan Update to provide a comprehensive set of actions to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality affecting the Reservation study area. While the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) focused on identifying actions to facilitate employee multimodal transportation, the Master Plan ensured transportation considerations were integrated into the wider context of the Reservation Master Plan. The Master Plan and TMP planning processes jointly determined circulation improvements in order to facilitate safe, secure, and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement on the Reservation for employees and visitors alike.

Currently cyclists access the Pentagon via a combination of two trails and on-street routes, but improvements recently completed and others being planned could change that. The bicycle network also connects to Columbia Pike, and that won't change

Cyclists utilize both of the Arlington County Multi-Use Trails (the trail running along the eastern edge of Route 27 and the Mount Vernon Trail) as well as vehicular roadways. A number of bike racks are situated around the Reservation; the most heavily used are near the Corridor 3 Bridge and at the Pentagon Athletic Center (PAC).

Improvements to the Humpback Bridge and a new shared-use path underpass have recently been completed. Modification of the Boundary Channel Drive/I-395 interchange is planned to serve the proposed Long Bridge Park Regional Aquatics Center and the recently completed Long Bridge outdoor recreation park. The proposed project would provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access to Boundary Channel Drive and the Pentagon building for Pentagon employees.

To the north and west of the Pentagon, modification and repair to the Route 27 overpass over Route 110 is being planned to provide space for a shared-use path and a wider sidewalk. Improvements to the existing Route 110 Trail are also being planned.

Beyond the added sharrows, there are other planned improvements. At the Pentagon's Hayes Street parking lot between I-395 and Army-Navy Drive (which connects to the Pentagon via the longest pedestrian tunnel in Virginia), a new public bike parking facility is recommended. It would also remove some car parking to make room for a bus  drop-off. Facility-wide, the number of employee parking spaces will be reduced from 8,494 parking spaces to 7,199 parking spaces.

There are a few elements that planners think will eliminate conflict areas and make biking better, even though they aren't bike projects per se. These are:

• A dedicated bus lane to and from the Pentagon Transit Center on the outside perimeter of the South Parking Lot commuter plaza will eliminate conflicts between pedestrians and buses accessing the PTC.
• A dedicated rideshare lane with a waiting area will allow for the smooth circulation of rideshare vehicles and minimize conflicts between pedestrians and cars in the parking lot.
• The signalization of intersections along North and South Rotary Roads will allow for safer pedestrian crossings.
• A reduced number of access points to parking areas at South Rotary Road to improve traffic flow and enhance traffic and pedestrian safety.

Other planned bike improvements are

• Coordination with Arlington County to facilitate the County’s installation of a fence and a multi-use trail connection along Boundary Channel Drive and the Pentagon Lagoon that will connect to a signed public bike route from the proposed roundabout on Boundary Channel Drive to Long Bridge Park. Areas north of the multi-use path intersection with the roundabout will be signed as restricted to DoD/Pentagon badge holders only.
• Two new Pentagon employee bike racks in addition to the existing 46 racks.

Finally, the Pentagon received numerous comments suggesting that more employees would bike to work if they had shower facilities available. They did an analysis and have decided that locker and shower facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians will be added within the Pentagon at the bike rack entrances, pending space availability.

What I don't see is a plan to fix one of my pet peeves, the useless, but commute-slowing leftover driveway stub along Washington Blvd. I mean, c'mon man. A little work on the Route 27 Trail (really just a sidewalk) would be much appreciated too. 

Here, by the way, is the current conditions as they see them.

Driver in fatal DC hit and run crash found and charged

In late June, cyclist Burgess Johnson was struck by a Camaro while going to the store. The driver of the Camaro reportedly got out of the car after the crash, assessed the situation and then drove away. Three weeks later Johnson died. 

At the latest Bicycle Advisory Council meeting, MPD reported that the driver has been found and charged with hit-and-run. Johnson was found to be at fault - after running a stop sign - but the driver failed to render aid. Neither the name of the driver nor the exact charges were reported. 

College Park TOD will update bike/ped Metro tunnel and add bike sharing

The Prince George's County planning board has approved a 440-unit transit-oriented apartment complex on a parking lot just south and east of the College Park Metro Station. That project will also build a parklet and add amenities for cyclists. 

The development of the apartment complex also includes redeveloping and landscaping the area in between the property and the Metro station known as Brooks Parcel. The vision for the patch of land, north of the proposed complex, is a public pedestrian plaza that will also be home to an M Bike station and the bikeshare program the county chooses to install in the coming years.

Other tasks detailed as conditions for approval by the planning board staff include updating the nearby bike and pedestrian tunnel with lighting and paint, replacing and relocating old and damaged signage in the area, and adding crosswalks through nearby streets.

Commissioner Will Doerner also made two other suggestions for the developers to consider as they go further along in the approval process. He suggested they consider adding a tool station for bikers near the bike share docks and that they consider adding wayfinding maps near the stations as well.

“That would be an obvious place for someone with a bike, who owns a bike, to kind of go and look and see if they could repair their bike,” he said. “I haven’t seen anything when I’ve been riding up there and it’s a terrible incident when you have a flat or something goes down and you just need to fix your bike really quickly.”

Haller noted that Gilbane is well aware of the need for bike tool stations and that a similar concern has come up as they continue to develop near a metro station in Hyattsville. He also said the history of this area of the county will play a large role in the development of the building and said the maps with local sites and places to visit are a great idea.

Other conditions for final approval include plans for short-term and long-term bike parking, restriping the street at River Road and River Tech Court and have a final internal sound study completed to ensure outside noise is not overpowering.

They should also set aside space along the south side of the stream (name?) through the Brooks Parcel for a trail between the Metro and the Northeast Branch trail. Such a trail could tie several facilities into the trail system and create a direct connection to the Metro.