It's been a month since I checked in on the Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan, and in that time, they've been busy. They held a public hearing on February 25th and three additional work sessions, as well as posting the documents from work sessions 1 and 2 in February.
There's just too much material to put into one post. I'll hit some of the highlights, but if you care about biking in Montgomery County, I recommend poking around on the website and submitting comments.
WABA comments
Most of the responses have been positive, and WABA is highly supportive of the plan so far. But they do have some criticisms that I'll highlight.
They're concerned that the Plan relies too heavily on sidepaths for separated bikeways on major roads. They don't think these will be attractive to most users and want the plan to recommend protected on-street bike lanes instead, wherever possible.
Planning Staff respond that these won't be like sidepaths they've built in the past
Since the main issue of concern is the quality of sidepath construction, the focus should be on improving sidepath quality, not on constructing separated bike lanes, which are likely to cost more than sidepaths. Pages 121 – 122 of the plan recommends that Montgomery County improve its sidepath and trail design standards. MCDOT will be revising their road design standards over the coming months and sidepath quality will be an important issue to be addressed.
WABA also worries about access to schools.
The Plan also falls short in the area of access to county schools by bike. The Plan instructs the schools to provide parking for bikes, but in over half the elementary and middle schools full buildout of the Plan will not increase the percentage of students who can bike to school. While some schools will see a slight increase in low-stress bike access, too many will remain inaccessible. The same is true for 8 of 21 high schools and 13 of 30 County Recreation Centers. The Plan must do better, especially for school age children in the county.
The planners point out that the reasons so few schools have "bicycle connectivity" is that the standard is so high. For example, neighborhood sidewalks are not considered bikeable by children. And many schools are near high speed roads.
To address this concern, the Planning Board could consider recommending a Safe Routes to School policy: "Safe Routes to School: Develop a Safe Routes to School policy that permanently (not just during school hours) reduces posted speed limits in front of schools and provides traffic calming features and/or traffic control, such as pedestrian median refuges, adjacent to schools to facilitate safe crossings."
In addition WABA requests several additional facilities such as a separated bikeway on East-West highway from downtown Bethesda to Beach Drive. One key piece of the plan is the system of "breezeways" that will connect key areas over long distances in the county - think intercity travel. Breezeways are a combination of Trails, Sidepaths, Separated bike lanes and Neighborhood greenways depending on the conditions. In many cases WABA would like those extended. When the plan calls for a sidepath, WABA wants one on both sides of the street which is the norm in the Plan.
On the East-West Highway bikeway, staff writes
Adding a separated bikeway on East West Highway between Wisconsin Ave and Beach Drive will be challenging and costly. The Capital Crescent Trail is under construction and will serve many of the same users that would benefit from a bikeway on East-West Highway.
The SHA on the other hand is concerned that the Plan gives too much space to cyclists. "The Bicycle Master Plan proposes two-way bikeways on both sides of the streets on many of the County’s major highways. SHA questions whether there is sufficient demand to support this investment, whether there is sufficient right-of-way and whether it will take away space from other elements of the roadway."
The County's position is that
By providing a two-way facility on each side of the street, Montgomery County will enable bicyclists to complete trips to their destinations with minimal conflicts and delay and encourage more "Interested but Concerned" riders to consider bicycling.
Too much parking (for bikes)
Another interesting issue is the MCDOT thinks the plan calls for too many Bicycle Parking Stations (33 of them), so planning staff is removing two of them - at Gateway Center Station and Manekin Station.
CO2 reduction
The total calculated yearly reduction in emissions as a result of the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan is between approximately 15,500 and 33,000 metric tons of C02e, which is equivalent to removing between approximately 3,300 and 7,000 cars from the roads each year. Based on staff’s judgment, we believe the reductions are closer to the higher end of the range.
Speeding tickets (for bikes)
The plan originally proposed speed limits of 10 mph on shared streets and 15 mph on neighborhood greenways . MCDOT pointed out that this would mean that a lot of cyclists would be speeding. So they've raised that limit to 20mph.
A connection from the Capital Crescent Trail to Broad Street (where the Glen Echo Trolley once ran)
MCDOT recommended connecting the CCT to the C&O Canal towpath by providing a short trail between the Capital Crescent Trail and the Broad Street in the Brookmont community (Bicyclists would then use an existing connection between Broad Street and the C&O Canal Towpath), and staff thinks its a good idea - contingent upon evaluation of potential impacts to park land. This would also create a connection to the Trolley ROW (the same one that could build a trail from the Palisades to Georgetown).
There are dozens of other goodies in the working section staff reports for those who have the interest to find them.
The next work session is scheduled for April 19, 2018.
The line between sidepath and protected lane starts to blur once you start getting really good at designing both. The main difference being that pedestrians aren't allowed on bike lanes I guess.
But if we have a spot where a sidepath has so many people that its causing congestion then A: it's a success that should be celebrated and B: you can come up with an engineering fix (aka separate paths now).
Re: Speed limits
Maybe its clearer in the report but are we proposing separate speed limits for bikes for on-street routes? Or would cars using the shared streets and greenways also now be driving at a 20mph limit?
Posted by: drumz | March 28, 2018 at 02:12 PM
Same speed limit for both.
Posted by: washcycle | March 28, 2018 at 02:15 PM
As I see it, the big difference between sidepaths and protected bike lanes is the intersection treatment.
Sidepaths use crosswalks to get through intersections. These are dangerous because drivers are not looking out for high-speed people (relative to a person walking) in crosswalks. People who ride bicycles do not have the discipline to slow to walking speed at every crosswalk. This is why sidewalk cycling is so dangerous.
Protected bike lanes generally have extra signage and street markings to inform drivers that bicycles might be present and also usually do _not_ include slip lanes or other accommodations for speed-crazy drivers. Big difference.
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | March 29, 2018 at 02:05 PM
Okay regarding that connection between the CCT and the Brookmont neighborhood:
That would be a huge bridge.
NPS would have to approve it.
The Brookmont neighborhood would have to be supportive of it.
All the streets there are one way (Going in a counterclockwise loop) for the buses.
Residents would rightly argue that bicyclists would cycle in the wrong direction on one way streets.
And just for the record, this would NOT connect to the Palisades-Georgetown trail I am working on.
That said, what MCDOT let out is that not only would this bridge connect indirectly to the C&O canal, it could potential connect people using the trolley path going north to Glen Echo Park. I met with Patricia Shepard about 4 years ago about this connection so at least they know about it.
The trolley path going north from Brookmont to Glen Echo Park is 80% there. A trolley bridge at the sycamore store would need to be restored/replaced. And 20 % of the path would need to be created.....but it would be a better connection than the current Macarthur Blvd path IMO.
Even if NPS approves this connection, they would need to construct a very large bridge.
Posted by: Brett Young | April 03, 2018 at 11:08 AM
I don't think you'd need that big of a bridge. It doesn't have to be at grade the way the trolley bridge was. The trail could follow the terrain (I've hiked across that area) and then climb up to the other side again. You'd need long ramps and maybe a switchback, but not a trestle.
It would not connect directly to the Palisades trail, but both could connect to the CCT and only a short distance apart.
Posted by: washcycle | April 03, 2018 at 01:21 PM