TheWashCycle

Planning Board Sends Bicycle Master Plan to Montgomery County Council for Consideration

Following their 6th and final work session, the Montgomery County Planning Board voted to transmit the Planning Board Draft of the Bicycle Master Plan to the County Council and County Executive. That will get a council public hearing on July 10th and should be approved and adopted this upcoming fall. 

In the May meeting, Planning Staff recommended only one change, the removal of the Willard Ave sidepath between River Road and the Willard Avenue Trail (circled in blue)

The Brookdale Community Association requested that this bikeway be removed, since it would likely require removing on-street parking in a residential community. Planning staff supports removing this bikeway since an existing parallel path is located in the Willard Avenue Neighborhood Park, a short distance away.

The plan is extensive and really, too big to cover in a post. You can see the Bikeway Recommendations here, and the full plan here. Below is an example of all the facilities planned for just one region. Like DC's it's very ambitious, but ambition is only the first part of the process. They have to actually build it out. 

I-66 trail design undergoes small changes, mostly for the worse

Last fall, I wrote about the multi-use paths that will be built as part of the Transform 66 project. I wrote about the sound barriers in most recent design and about some of the places where the design comes up lacking. But at the same public hearings in November where they presented the bike map and video in the first link above, the latest concept design was also presented, showing the detailed changes since the last concept I wrote about, the April 2016 one. Some of these changes are good, and some are trivial, but mostly they make the trail worse.

It's pretty clear that they are building the road, and only then are they figuring out how to wend a trail through it - at the absolute minimum cost. 

The project, which will start work in 2022, will include 18 miles of new trails, either built with the highway expansion by Express Mobility Partners or by "others". Those trails will - eventually - be integrated with existing bike/ped facilities, including the W&OD Trail. In addition the project will improve 11 crossings of I-66 with expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities. And they'll install 8 trail counters. 

The changes are detailed below, moving east to west.

In the Dunn Loring plat, the 2016 design has the trail starting at the corner of Stenhouse and Gallows (connecting to a trail along Gallows that connects, in turn ,to the W&OD Trail). It would then follow Stenhouse Pl to I-66 and then pass under Gallows Road along I-66. The new design connects to the Gallows Road path on the west side of Gallows and connects directly to the trail along I-66. Though small, this is an improvement since it means trail users won't have to cross Gallows Road. 

The next change is in Vienna where the path will move between the road and the sound barrier at the west end of South Side Park. And it will stay there until Nutley, with the exception of a small segment at Yeonus Drive. At Yeonus the sound wall and trail swap positions to avoid an "Existing TBS" (whatever that is, but it seems to be utility related).

At Nutley Street, there are several small changes. The most important one is that the trail is designed to connect to Dellwood Drive (circled in blue in the map below. North is to the right), where previously it did not. Circled in red is a new configuration that takes the trail across the entrance ramp and onto the south side of Virginia Center Boulevard instead of directly onto the Boulevard. The aqua circle in the middle shows where the bike facility was moved from the east bridge to the west one (not sure why) and the fuchsia circle shows where the a ramp between Nutley and I-66 moved, which moved the underpass. These are good or neutral changes. 

At Blake Lane in Oakton, the trail originally started directly across Blake from Sutton (where a "proposed path" connecting to Nutley ends) and followed a curving path to I-66. But on the new design (below) it starts south of Sutton because the trail has to get inside the noise wall. 

At Route 123, the trail undergoes quite a few changes. The trail along White Granite Drive (red circle) has been extended along the west side of the road instead of becoming an on-street route and the trail along Rosenhaven (blue circle) has been straightened at the expense of having only one connection to the trail south. 

The trail along the west side of 123 is significantly changed, and not for the better. In the 2016 design (on the right), the trail going east-west bisected a north south trail, but now the north south trail ends at the east west one (red circle). This means that cyclists going north or coming from the north have to ride to the junction by Rosenhaven and then turn, instead of taking a straighter route. In addition, perhaps because 123 is shifted east, the trail now makes turns (other two cirlces) to stay away from 123, making it a longer route (but one farther from traffic and noise). 

This 123 route would be a lot better if they restored that deleted connection, which would make for a much faster trip for 1 out 3 routes. The ideal connection would look something like the red line below.

But things really get mucked up at Fair Oaks/Route 50. In the old design (below), a trail-user going west would stay close to I-66; then do a narrow loop to go southeast and over 66; and then take a pretty direct path across Random Hills Park to Random Hills Road. Not direct, and certainly not ideal, but cheaper than building a special-purpose trail bridge over I-66 (Which is what they should do, from the loop to the west side of Random Hills Park).

But what fresh hell is this? In the new design (please forgive the bad drawing, the line was dark so I tried to make it more visible), trail users going west will first go significantly north of I-66; then turn south, back to I-66 around a circle; then west until they make a much larger loop and go back to the southeast; then go halfway around a circle to go back northwest(?!); then turn 90 degrees to go southwest; then another 90 degrees to go southeast again.  Good God. This was not built to help people commute by trail, I can say that for sure. Part of the changes were a response to a change in how traffic will move from 50N to I-66W, but the rest I don't get. Replace the long tunnel on top, with three smaller ones along I-66 and then build the trail bridge over I-66 that goes to Random Hill Park.

In Fair Lakes it gets arguably worse than it used to be. In the 2016 design, the trail was to be in the I-66 corridor (south of the black and white line below) west of West Ox Road. In the new design it becomes a sidepath along Fair Lakes Parkway and Fair Lakes Circle.

And farther west it continues as a sidepath. On the west side of Fairfax County Parkway, it's unchanged except that the proposed connection to the Fair Lakes Shopping Center was moved way to the west.

In the Stringfellow section, the ramp between I-66 and Stringfellow was moved to the center of the highway, which allows the trail to be a straight path along I-66 and over Stringfellow, which is a big improvement. And there's a separate connection to the Stringfellow Park and Ride too.

In the Route 28 area, the "built by others" trail heading south on Sully Road from the Ellanore C. Lawrence Park parking has been removed. The trail in the Sully Road area has been straightened. The split between the section going south and the section going west has been moved (blue circle), creating two separate trails inside the cloverleaf.

In the Cub Run area, a trail connection to Stone Road has been removed, as has a trail in the power line right-of-way.

When the trail crosses Bull Run and enters Prince William County, it was - in the 2016 design - supposed to split to run on both the north and south sides of I-66. The northside path was to run along Battlefield Parkway to Lee Highway where it would meet up with the trail from the south side. The south side trail crosses to the north side at Groveton Road and the two would reconnect. Now there's only the south side trail.  

In addition some comments on the trail were addressed at both the November meetings and another one in January.  

At the November meeting, they received 274 comments on the shared-use paths, most of those asking that the path be outside the noise wall. There were 8 comments, and an online petition from Stenwood Elementary with 450 names, in favor of the trail inside the noise wall. There were also requests for taller trail walls, concerns about local pollution for trail users, requests for more access points to the trail and requests to extend the trail. Their response:

VDOT and EMP have been working with the cycling community and adjacent neighborhoods to balance the interests of all parties as it relates to the shared use path location inside and outside the noise wall. This dialogue has reduced the amount of trail located inside the noise wall from five miles down to approximately three miles. As the design is finalized, we continue to look for opportunities to improve trail connectivity and locations inside and outside the noise wall, to benefit future trail users and adjacent communities.

VDOT and EMP continue to assess barrier design height concerns where the shared use path runs inside the noise wall.
Several commenters, including Prince William County, have requested the shared use path run adjacent to I-66 through Prince William County. This facility is not in the County’s transportation plan and would likely impact historic and environmental resources. Instead, a parallel trail network is proposed along Balls Ford Road and other streets. A portion of this network is being built as part of this project. Additional segments are proposed to be built as part of other projects, potentially funded through the I-66 concession fee.

The eastern terminus of the shared use path at Gallows Road will allow access to the W&OD trail through sidewalks and bike lanes on Gallows Road. Users can access the Stenhouse neighborhood to the east by crossing Gallows Road at the Cottage Street traffic signal.

At the January 4th Meeting, there were only 4 speakers, but the first one recommended adding a bike connection from Balls Ford Road to Bull Run Drive over Bull Run, which is already part of the plan

That was a meeting to discuss projects that will be paid for in part by the concession fee to the Commonwealth as part of the financial agreement with Express Mobility Partners. This includes a few bike/ped projects: 

• George Snyder Trail in Fairfax City
• Monument Drive bridge pedestrian improvements in Fairfax
• Lee Highway pedestrian improvements in Fairfax

Can Washington DC Learn from NYC’s Equality Drive in Cycling?

The following is a paid advertisement

Citi Bike has pretty much been a revelation for New York City since its launch in 2013. With a birthday party set to light up Prospect Park on May 27, it represents a major success for the bicycle sharing system.

While New York City had reservations about the public cycling incentive, to begin with, time has proven those fears to be erroneous. Under the Koch Administration, there was a proposed ban on bikes in Midtown due to the Mayor’s insistence that bicycles were a major cause of ‘traffic chaos’. A few with some extra dollars and access to a best free bets site would probably have begged to differ.

With just one (albeit one too many) Citi Bike-related fatality since the launch of the incentive, the New York Post’s warnings of a “bloodbath” on the streets of New York seems a little much. That being said, hindsight does tend to be “20/20”. Still, the success of Citi Bike speaks volumes for the incentive.

“Five years ago, we couldn’t really imagine that you’d be seeing Leonardo DiCaprio and Park Slope moms and the whole range of New Yorkers riding around on blue bikes,” Julie Wood, who acts as the spokesperson for Citi Bike’s parent company Motivate said (via Gothamist). “But now it’s such a part of the fabric of the city, that we kind of take it for granted.”

Gender Equality & Diversity

Celebrities and moms aside, there seems to be another inclusive factor which is felt under Citi Bike.

While Motivate and Citi Bike do not explicitly collect racial data on users, it did state that only 4% of the service’s users in Washington D.C were African American. This is surprising, given that 50% of the city is black. The reasons cited by research teams are that bike infrastructure appears to be perceived as a threat, given the association with gentrification. Another reason is that non-whites do not have as much of an interest in cycling than whites.

In the case of DC, more African American users seemed to cycle once dockless bikes were introduced. New York and Motivate are challenging the racial issue by providing a discount to NYCHA residents. A number of credit union members and community organizations can also avail of a cut-price incentive which the organization and the City hopes will encourage more people of color to join.

Women also ride in minimal numbers in comparison to men. Following the first two years of Citi Bike, a study conducted found that just 22.3% of bike rides were taken by women using the service. This is in great contrast to many other places around the world, such as in European cities, which have a 50/50 split when it comes to male and female riders.

Once again, there are many reasons which have been cited for this. A study headed by NYU’s Sarah Kaufman concluded:

“It only gets you so far to expect women, who are overwhelmingly responsible for caretaker trips (kids, elderly relatives) to bike for part of the way or pay for a bike membership on top of multiple car or transit trips.”

There is still some way to go before these issues can be addressed, but for now, New York seems to be doing something towards fixing them.

Portion of Four Mile Run Trail Closed for Repairs on May 30 and 31

On Wednesday, May 30, and Thursday, May 31, the City of Alexandria will close a portion of the Four Mile Run Trail for crack repairs. This work was originally slated for May 16 and 17, but was rescheduled due to weather conditions.    

The work will begin near the trail entrance on Commonwealth Avenue and end just before the bridge over the Four Mile Run tributary. A map of the affected area and alternative routes can be viewed both below and online. The work is expected to be completed by the end of the day on May 31, weather permitting.

For more information, please visit alexandriava.gov/92893. For questions or concerns, please contact Call.Click.Connect staff at 703.746.HELP (4357).

It's time for DC to rethink its e-bike and scooter regulations

E-bikes are starting to hit the streets in DC in much larger numbers; not just as part of dockless bikeshare, but personally owned bikes too. And with Uber's recent purchase of Jump, it's reasonable to expect the number to increase again if the pilot ends and DDOT allows more.

There are many reasons to support e-bikes; reasons that are similar to the reasons to support regular bikes. Surveys show they encourage people to drive less. They can improve mobility for people, especially in urban areas. They're better for the environment than driving. They're better for health than driving (and possibly using transit). They can reduce congestion. They can save you money. 

For these reasons, and because they've been getting cheaper and more useful over the last 30 years, e-bikes - especially the pedelec types - are taking off, with some touting them as the "vehicle of the future".

Unfortunately, the current regulations and laws in DC are more restrictive than they need to be and largely out of date. At the DDOT budget oversight hearing in February, they mentioned that they're working on new regulations, something the Washington Post reported in April, so now seems like the right time for people to start thinking about them.

Electric bicycles have been around for more than a century, but the pedal assist or pedelec bike really only dates back to 1989, with the first ones going on sale in 1993. By 1997, they were already being seen as the next big thing when Lee Iacocca founded his own e-bike company, EV Global Motor Company. (EV has since gone out of business like so many others).

The current state of regulations and how we got here

First some background. In the US, there are often four classes of e-bikes ranging from Class 1, pedal-assist bikes like Jump Bikes to Class 4, which are mopeds or motorcycles that can go faster than 28mph. However, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) is promoting a class system with only 3 classes.

1) A “class 1 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
2) A “class 2 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
3) A “class 3 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and is equipped with a speedometer.

Under federal law, only class 1 and class 2 are "bikes". Those are the only types that NHTSA does not consider "motor vehicles" (despite having a motor). However the industry promoted rules would allow class 3 e-bikes (which can go up to 28mph) to be treated similar to bikes in a few ways, like being allowed into bike lanes.

In the US, both class 1 and 2 are limited to 20 mph (32 kph) with motor wattage of <= 750 watts, while in the EU, the limit is 15.5 mph (25 kph) with motor wattage <= 250 watts. Canada has split the difference with a 20mph limit and 500 watt limit. 

The distinction between 1 and 2 was first adopted in 2015 by California, and since then elsewhere.  Most states do not regulate class 1 and class 2 differently. The division was put in place so that individual trails and municipalities can regulate them differently if they want.  There was concern that the power of a "throttle" could rooster tail on softer trail material, meaning they might not be appropriate in some places (like the C&O Trail) where Class 1 would be. However, the National Park Service counts e-bikes as motorized vehicles and they are not allowed on the C&O Trail. The BPSA would like to see that change.

The BPSA system also creates rules governing the use of electric bicycles, with safety as the top priority. Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles would be permitted to travel anywhere traditional bikes are permitted, as the maximum assisted speed of these devices is closely aligned with speeds traveled by traditional bicycles. Class 3 electric bicycles could be ridden on streets and roadways where traditional bicycles are permitted, including bicycle lanes, but would be restricted from
slower speed areas such as multi-use paths. Class 3 electric bicycles would also be subject to additional requirements, such as a minimum user age and helmet mandate. Electric bicycles would not be subject to any licensing, registration, or insurance requirements.

The 20 mph cut-off between class 1&2 and class 3 was first codified in the US in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which defined the Electric Bicycle as "any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour." That law allowed e-bikes on trails and pedestrian walkways. It also instructed the NHTSA to regulate them.  At the time, some European countries already had limits of 25 kph. (The EU wouldn't adopt this limit until 2002). I don't know how US lawmakers settled on 20mph, but my theory is that they were writing a definition to match the European one and they decided to go up to 20 instead of down to 15. 

In 2001, Congress passed a law that defined electric bikes so that they could be regulated as Consumer Products by the CPSC.  It leaned heavily on the definition from the 1988 law, as noted in the committee report, and defined a low-speed electric bicycle as "a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a  motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."

Here again, it's unclear why they increased the power to 750 watts from the European limit of 250. Maybe it was because 1 h.p. seemed like a nicer number, but it's probably because 250 watts wasn't providing enough power. The original pedelec bike had a maximum power output of 235 watts and the UK already limited electric bikes to 200 Watts, so 250 likely seemed reasonable at first. But later people began to recognize that with older, weaker or larger riders; on hilly terrain, or with a large cargo bike; 250 watts wasn't quite enough power and so manufacturers began making more powerful bikes for consumers.

The committee report for the 2001 US law stated the reason for the law was to create more reasonable regulations.

If NHTSA were to enforce its regulations on low-speed electric bicycles strictly, the bikes would be required to have  a number of safety features, such as brake lights, turn signals, automotive grade headlights, rear view mirrors, and license plates, that are prohibitively costly, unwieldy, or consume too much power for a low-speed electric bicycle. It is estimated that the application of motor vehicle regulations to power-assisted bicycles would increase the retail price of these bicycles by at least $200-$300 and make them less manageable and more unwieldy for consumers.

Of course, CPSC can only regulate bikes that are sold as electric bikes but a 2014 study out of Portland State discovered that

52 percent of e-bike owners converted their standard bicycle to an electric-assist bicycle (MacArthur, Dill & Person, 2014). These e-bikes were first purchased as a bicycle and later outfitted with an electric motor. Thus, CPSC is limited in its capacity to regulate the technology

That number is likely to have changed quite a bit in the last five years. 

DC Regulations

DC doesn't have a definition for "e-bike" and doesn't distinguish between the classes. Nor does it have a special category for scooters. In addition, there's some poor language that means they could reasonably meet multiple definitions and some regulations that don't make a lot of sense.

In DC, an e-bike could be a "motorized bicycle" which is "a vehicle with a post mounted seat or saddle for each person that the device is designed and equipped to carry; two (2) or three (3) wheels in contact with the ground, which are at least sixteen inches (16 in.) in diameter; fully operative pedals for human propulsion; and a motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground." Motorized bicycles are not allowed in bike lanes or on the sidewalk, except to park. This is what DDOT says an e-bike is.

But, it could also be a "Personal Mobility Device" which is a motorized propulsion device designed to transport one person or, basically, a segway. That's a terrible definition because many things, including a motorcycle with only one seat, could qualify. [It would be easy to fix though by adding text so that it reads "...device, without a post mounted seat or saddle, designed..."] PMDs are allowed everywhere bikes are and nowhere they aren't, but you need to be 16 to ride one, they have to be registered, they can't go faster than 10mph, you can't ride with just one hand and you can't wear headphones in both ears when you ride them. So trying to call an e-bike a PMD would get most cyclists in trouble unless it was registered and they rode slow (which defeats the purpose a bit).  The new e-scooters are defined as PMDs, which means if they aren't registered, they're illegal. 

A class 3 e-bike is not a motorized bicycle in DC, as it is too fast. It could be a PMD (again, the bad definition) or a "motor-driven cycle", which is how DDOT said they would consider them. Motor-driven cycles are treated much more like motorcycles than motorized bicycles are. They require inspections, insurance, registration and helmets; and they aren't allowed on sidewalks, trails, or in bike lanes. The registration fee is half that for a car for the first two years. 

In Maryland, they have a separate definition for an "electric bicycle", but they treat it exactly like a regular bicycle as long as it has pedals, the top powered speed is 20mph and the maximum power is 500W. There is no license requirement, no registration, no minimum age and no helmet requirement. They can be ridden on bike paths, but not sidewalks. 

In Virginia, an e-bike would be an "Electric Power Assisted Bicycle" which again is treated very much like a regular bicycle as long as it has pedals, the top powered speed is 25mph and the maximum power is 1000W. There is no license requirement, no registration, a minimum age of 14 and no helmet requirement. They can be ridden on bike paths or sidewalks. 

How should we regulate these bikes and scooters?

As the Washington Post reported in April, Washington, DC "and other Washington-area jurisdictions are among those taking steps to modernize and streamline policies advocates say are outdated, set unrealistic restrictions and confuse riders of bikes that can be run on electric power as well as by pedaling."

In the District, transportation officials say they are drafting rules to allow the pedal-assist bikes on trails and possibly sidewalks outside the downtown area, where conventional bikes are allowed. Montgomery adopted park rules last year that give the county discretion to open trails to e-bikes on a case-by-case basis, and Montgomery’s Parks and Planning departments are set to begin that process on less-used trails this year, moving gradually to the most popular ones, such as the Capital Crescent Trail.

Arlington does not have a policy regarding the use of e-bikes, but it is researching the subject.

The Fairfax County Park Authority said e-bike riders have asked for the policy to be changed to allow them on popular commuting trails. The authority is reviewing the pros and cons of the change and the possible conflicts with other trail users, spokeswoman Judy Pedersen said.

Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles, a spokeswoman for the National Park Service, said the agency is tracking what surrounding jurisdictions are doing.

(PG County is not pursuing changes right now). There are some good ideas in there, and everyone should be looking at what rules will best meet regional goals of safety and mobility. 

A recent report on e-bikes by the National Institute of Transportation and Communities discusses the various regulations for e-bikes in North America and is a good source for those who want to learn more. 

Here are some changes I'd recommend,

First we need to rework our definitions

1. We should fix the definition for a PMD as noted above by defining it as something without a post mounted seat or saddle
2. DC, VA and MD should institute the BPSA-recommended 3 class system noted above. Yes, it is coming from the industry, meaning we should be skeptical, but it matches up with current regulations at the federal level and other states and doesn't seem unreasonable.
3. We could leave the definition of "motorized bicycle" in place to cover non-electric, motorized bikes. If so, we should remove the part about the tire diameter lest people start putting gasoline motors on their Bromptons and terrorizing the good people of Cleveland Park. Leaving motorized bicycles only makes sense if we think we should regulate gas-powered bikes differently than electric powered bikes (and I think maybe we should). 
4. While we're at it, we should remove the definition for a "sidewalk bicycle" which is a bike with small tires. This was meant to be a way to allow kids to ride on the sidewalk downtown and keep them off the roads, but it also applies to people on folding bikes, like the Brompton. So we should just nix it, and say that children under 16 (or some other age) and their accompanying parents are allowed on the sidewalk in the CBD. I let my kids ride their "sidewalk bicycles" in the road, and so I'm not sure we need to ban them there. (If so, every bike to school day I've been involved in has been a rolling caravan of scofflaw cycling). 

Once we have these new definitions, here's how I'd regulate them

1. PMDs - I'd leave them mostly unchanged. I'd allow their use everywhere bikes are used and nowhere they aren't. I'd restrict them to those over 16 (though I'm open to a lower age if people who know more about segways and scooters show what the limit should be). I'd put in place the same helmet requirements as for bikes. If we're going to keep the speed limit - and that could be revisited too - then set the fine to $25, which is what the ticket is for speeding on a bicycle. I'd get rid of the registration requirement, and at least look at the two hand and no headphone rules (again, I'd want to hear from PMD-users/experts)
2. I'd treat class 1 and class 2 e-bikes exactly like bikes, with the exception of disallowing class 2 e-bikes on unpaved trails. 
3. I'd treat motorized bicycles exactly like bikes, except that I would disallow them on all trails and sidewalks (for noise reasons I'd keep them separate from pedestrians).
4. I'd treat class 3 e-bikes as California does, for lack of a lot of knowledge. That means mandatory helmets, disallowed on trails and sidewalks and no riders under 16 years old. 

There are also some other changes necessitated by e-bikes, or that would be otherwise useful

1. All provisions dealing with parking a bicycle also apply to parking a "motorized bicycle." This means that if you lock a Jump bike to a parking meter or bike rack for longer than 12 hours, you're violating the law.  ["A person may secure a bicycle to a stanchion for a period of not more than twelve (12) consecutive hours, by means of a lock or similar device"] We need to be able to remove abandoned bikes, but otherwise I'm not sure I understand the utility of this rule. I'd recommend extending the time a bike can be parked in one place, perhaps as long as 30 days. Jump "touches" their bikes pretty frequently and can move them around when they do if that's important, though I'd probably just exclude bikeshare from this rule entirely. 
2. The Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2016 creates a limitation to the contributory negligence rule, stating that "The negligence of a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other non-motorized user of a public highway involved in a collision with a motor vehicle shall not bar the plaintiff's recovery in any civil action unless the plaintiff's negligence is a proximate cause and greater  than the aggregated total amount of negligence of all of the defendants that proximately caused the plaintiff's injury." "Non-motorized user" means an individual using a skateboard, non-motorized scooter, Segway, tricycle, and other similar non-powered transportation devices. Ignoring that a segway is powered, it doesn't specifically talk about "motorized bicycles." I would change the definition of "Non-motorized user" to include individuals on PMDs and class 1-3 e-bikes.  

This list may not be exhaustive, and it will likely need to be reviewed once we know more about e-bikes; but I think it represents some common-sense fixes and removes regulations that limit e-bike use with little to no benefit. 

HPRB rejected WMATA's application to raze the Foundry Branch Trestle

The Historic Preservation Review Board unanimously rejected WAMAT's application to raze the Foundry Branch Trestle. Next step is for WMATA to appeal to the Mayor. 

Cyclists are the worst - if you ignore drivers

I know that it's lazy to knock down anything but the best counter-arguments to your beliefs, and so at first glance this letter to the editor calling cyclists the "worst" might not fit the bill. But sadly, as weak as it is, I think this is the strongest argument out there being made that "cyclists are the worst", an argument made difficult by the fact that it's clearly not true. 

The author of the letter said that he was "incensed" by an earlier letter published in the Post. That letter from a cyclist described a crash that he was involved with because a driver violated his right-of-way. Even the driver accepted that he was at fault. The cyclist then asked that drivers follow the rules so that everyone can make it where they're going without dying. Seems pretty innocuous, and not like something to get incensed about, but that's what happened. 

Before anyone cautions automobile drivers about bicycle safety, they should examine the habits of bicycle riders.

I'm not sure these things need to be done in series and if they were, I think the relative danger that cars present to everyone would put them first in the queue. The author then describes two close calls between her husband and a cyclist. 

One came out from between two buses to cross the street in the middle of four lanes of traffic as we approached from the opposite direction.

It's not a very good description, but it's not clear that the cyclist did anything that was illegal. 

The other, who was in the road, following the rules of vehicular traffic, came to a red light at a four-way intersection and decided to cross on the pedestrian crosswalk, thereby following the rules of pedestrian traffic. We were making a right turn on red after stopping but nearly hit the bicyclist. 

Again, there's some information missing, but it seems like the only person who nearly broke the law was the husband who almost didn't yield the right-of-way. And that's it. It's not a particularly compelling case that cyclists are the worst. 

I’m just amazed the fatality rate is not higher.

It takes a lot of near misses to raise the fatality rate. 

Bicyclists are the worst offenders because no one can anticipate what they’re going to do,

And yet, the crash rate for adult cyclists is likely lower than for drivers (A 1975 study for cyclists put the crash rate at 114 per million VMT on major roads*, lower for other facilities; for drivers it's at 223 [Figure 2-7]). 

And of course a recent study showed that drivers break the law more often than cyclists do. Another that cyclists usually break the law in the interest of safety, but that drivers break it to save time. 

and if there’s an accident, guess who’s going to be held responsible?

Likely not the driver, especially if they get "lucky" and kill the cyclist - drivers are less often found at fault when the cyclist isn't around to tell their side of the story. If they drive away, odds are they won't get caught. And if they stay, odds are very high that either they won't be at fault, won't be found at fault even thought they are, or won't get anything worse than a traffic ticket or a misdemeanor. 

With staggering repetition, motorists who kill cyclists with obvious negligence—manic speeders, drivers who are shown to be using their phones during or right before a crash, people who willfully leave someone to die on the side of the road—often slither through the judicial system with seemingly ridiculous charges and convictions.

If the cyclist lives, they have a good chance of not being found liable thanks to car friendly negligence laws (in MD and VA) and police bias. 

By no measure - danger, lawlessness, congestion inducing, pollution causing or rudeness - can one credibly claim that cyclists are the worst. There is only one king of that mountain - Autosaurus Rex.

*Crash rates per million miles on major streets = 114, minor roads = 105, on-road bike routes or lanes = 58, and off-road = 292

Hearing on Trestle raze permit next week and other trolley trail news

Last month Metro applied for a permit to raze the streetcar bridge over Foundry Branch. DDOT is interested in using the bridge as part of a trail that would follow some portion of the streetcar ROW between the Palisades and Georgetown, so razing it would force them to consider something else. WMATA has been warning for some time now that the trestle is in bad shape.

Since then advocates for saving the trestle for a trail crossing, such as the Palisades Citizens Association Trail Committee, have been busy getting support from local ANCs and Community organizations. ANC 3D has sent a letter to the Historic Preservation Office opposing the raze permit, and as they point out they're not the only ones. Their support was unanimous. 

ANC 3D supports preserving the Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle (the “Trestle”) as an enduring example of local rail history of the late 19th Century and for use by the public of a renovated/rebuilt bridge as a multi-purpose pedestrian trail and transportation corridor east of Foxhall Road.

ANC 3D joins the D.C. Preservation League, the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, the D.C. Recreational Trails Advisory Committee, the Foxhall Community Citizens Association, the Palisades Citizens Association, the Community Association of Georgetown, and the Georgetown BID are all in favor of preserving and restoring the Trestle.

WMATA's actions are confusing since District Department of Transportation has stated that they plan to undertake a feasibility study starting this spring or summer, to determine the Trestle's reuse potential.

The Trestle is one of only two remaining bridges along the former trolley line linking Georgetown and Glen Echo, Maryland. This line, constructed around 1900, provided the transportation to a ‘trolley’ park and thousands of Washingtonians used the line annually to access the Glen Echo Amusement Park. The tracks have been removed, but the right-of-way continues as a trail along the Potomac River overlook through the Palisades neighborhood in Northwest DC. The steel bridge span crossing Foundry Branch in the park is an excellent example of one of the few remaining early transportation bridges in the city. Weathering and a lack of maintenance have seriously damaged the structure, but it may have some life in it yet.

CALL TO ACTION:

Help save the Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle by sending a letter or email (by May 22nd) opposing the raze application to:

Chair Marnique Heath
Historic Preservation Review Board
1100 4th Street, SW, Suite E650
Washington, DC 20024

or

Marnique Heath, Chair, Historic Preservation Review Board at [email protected]

If you are interested in testifying in person, please join us at 441 4th Street, NW, 2nd Floor for the hearing on May 24th. There is no need to sign up in advance.

The Post ran an article recently about this trestle, two others in Maryland along the same ROW and how WMATA ended up with all them. The Walhonding trestle would be useful if the ROW in Maryland were made into a trail, but the Wilson one is probably not worth it. 

Arizona Avenue

In a related matter, DDOT is in the early stages of redesigning the 110 foot long bridge over Arizona Avenue along the old ROW. That project, as currently envisioned, will also improve the trail from Galena Place to Sherrier Place. 

The improvements being considered include rehabilitation and reconstruction of the bridge and its ramp, create a more accessible multi-use trail and add stormwater management and green infrastructure. Community leaders want the bridge replaced, a natural-looking, all-weather trail made level with the bridge with minimal impact on adjacent landowners. 

The current bridge was built in the 1980's and has clearance and structural issues as do the abutments. A new prefabricated steel box truss could be built in its place on modified and improved abutments. 

The existing ramp on the west side would be replaced, and a new ramp added on the east side. There would also be a new sidewalk on the west side heading back down the hill to Dorsett Place (and maybe farther?)

The east ramp and west ramp would differ from the current west ramp in their aesthetics. The railing would be lower than the current fencing for example. 

There would be plantings beside Arizona Avenue as well.

The trail surface along the ROW would also be improved. A decomposed granite layer, similar to the crushed limestone along the C&O Canal, would sit atop a stormwater layer with a perforated drainage pipe running through it. 

Phase I, which includes the environmental documentation and preliminary design, could wrap up this month. 

 

Delaware's Jack Markell Trail between Wilmington Riverfront to Old New Castle, is scheduled to open in June

The Jack Markell Trail, an 8 mile long bike trail  in Delaware between the Wilmington Riverfront and old New Castle is scheduled to open in June with a ceremony celebrating it on July 14th. The trail will be part of the East Coast Greenway, a trail from Calais, Maine, to Key West, Florida, that passes through the DC area. It will feature a 345 foot long bridge over the Christina River.

The 345-foot bicycle and pedestrian bridge is the longest bicycle and pedestrian bridge to be built in the state. The new span completes a seven-mile segment of the [East Coast Greenway] from Wilmington to New Castle.

“It’s a pretty dramatic improvement to our route,” says Mid-Atlantic Coordinator Daniel Paschall. “The Northern Delaware Greenway is a gem, and that brings you into Wilmington and the Riverwalk. Now you’ll pass through the beautiful Russell W. Peterson Urban Wildlife Refuge, cross the Christina, and travel on the Jack Markell Trail to New Castle, which is an extraordinary colonial town.” The bridge opens to the public this summer and will be celebrated officially on July 14 with Trailfest. Funding for the bridge and miles of new trail has come from a collaboration of regional, state, and federal sources and was championed by the new trail’s namesake, former Governor Jack Markell.

"We joke that during times when traffic is so bad on 95, you might be able to bike from Old New Castle to Wilmington much faster than you can make it in a car," said Jeff Niezgoda, DelDOT's assistant director for local system improvement programs. 

It's funny because it's true. The $23 million project built on the ROW of the old Delaware Division of the PW&B Railroad also includes a 2,300-foot boardwalk across marshland, and a smaller bridge on Little Mill Creek that leads to the DuPont Environmental Education Center and the Riverfront.

Further south, the trail will connect with an existing 1.4-mile path that stretches to Old New Castle.

Eighty percent of the bridge and trail costs were covered by the U.S. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

By summer 2019, another bridge across the Christina River will be finished further down the riverwalk. 

This new 470-foot multi-modal bridge over the Christina River will include two (2-12’) travel lanes and shoulders, as well as a 14’ wide bicycle/pedestrian path. The path will connect to the Riverfront walkway as well as other bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the area. The project extends from the area near Frawley Stadium across the Christina River to its east bank in the vicinity of Market Street/Walnut Street split of Business US 13.

MTA to save part of the Talbot Ave Bridge along CCT

As mentioned a couple of months ago, Maryland is planning on knocking down the Talbot Avenue bridge as part of the construction of the Purple Line. Shortly after that last post was written, MTA committed to preserving part. 

The Maryland Transit Administration has agreed to save the steel girders from the Talbot Avenue bridge, a 100-year-old span in the Lyttonsville area of Silver Spring, when it’s torn down to make way for the light-rail line, the county said.

The girders will be installed on a vacant state-owned parcel about two blocks from the bridge, near Talbot and Michigan avenues. They will form short walls on both sides of the Capital Crescent Trail to give runners and cyclists the feel of crossing a bridge.

Tim Cupples, Montgomery’s coordinator on the state’s Purple Line project, said the county and state are still discussing how much the preservation project will cost and who will pay for it.

But this part is confusing. Above it says MTA will save the girders, but then the Post article says they'll use replicas. So which is it?

In a statement, MTA spokeswoman Veronica Battisti said the state will use “replica girders” in the bridge-themed artwork chosen for the Lyttonsville station.

Anyway, this could be bad news for bike commuters in the area.

With the Talbot bridge’s future resolved, local residents say they’re still concerned about how they’ll get out of their community when another bridge, the Lyttonsville Place bridge, is also replaced during Purple Line construction.