TheWashCycle

Bike and Camp adventure

As reported at CommuterPageBlog.

DC Arlington bicycle MTP 7/7/08

The Bicycle Element of Arlington's Master Transportation Plan will go to the Planning Commission on July 7 and to the Arlington County Board for approval at its July 19 meeting. You can read about an earlier draft here or read the whole thing here. This will complete a process begun in 2004.

The proposed Bicycle Element establishes a plan to advance bicycling in Arlington as a means to achieve the MTP goals of providing high-quality transportation services, provide more transportation choices and promote equity. The Bicycle Element focuses primarily upon improving bicycle accommodations and safety on the network of streets and trails that constitute the Arlington’s bicycling environment. However, the Bicycle Element also recognizes that advancements must be made in the areas of education, enforcement and encouragement in order to achieve greater safety and bicycling participation rates.

The proposed Bicycle Element groups the policy statements into five categorical areas:
• completion of the Bikeway Network,
• increasing bicycle use,
• improving bicycle safety,
• managing the bikeway system, and
• integrating bicycling with other transportation modes.

Overall the Bicycle Element identifies a total of 47 actions to be undertaken to implement the County’s bicycle policies.

Worst cities for bike theft 2007

Guess what? DC didn't make the list of ten worst cities for bike theft this year. Here's the list according to Kryptonite

1. Philadelphia, PA
2. Chicago, IL
3. New York City, NY
4. San Francisco, CA
5. Tucson, AZ (tie)
    Portland, OR (tie)
7. Denver, CO
8. New Haven, CT
9. Cambridge, MA
10. Austin, TX

Last year, we were 4th. Eat it San Francisco. You can see all our previous placings (that I could find) here. I'm shocked. Kryptonite is a little shocked too.

Yup, I’m shocked, but that’s what the data tells us. This list is compiled by our proprietary data….input from our regional managers, hundreds of shop visits, input from colleges and universities we talk with, our customer service interactions (both over the phone/email and at events) and data from police in various cities. When we did the compilation, there wasn’t even a city close to Philly. Not even close.

There are a few other things here that are interesting….New Haven is a first timer on the list. Cambridge replaces the city across the river, Boston. No Washington, DC for the first time in a long time.

I'm note really sure what we've done to move off the list. It may be nothing (that others are slipping faster). I still read about and here about people having their bikes stolen. A friend of mine had her brand new bike stolen this week from out of her condo's common room (Cable locks are not good).

Bicyclists DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM OIL on July 4th with Free Valet Bike parking on the National Mall

From a WABA press release (and more here):

Spurred by soaring gas prices and our country’s overdependence on oil, bicycle advocates from around the country are urging Americans to show their patriotism this July 4^th, what they’re calling Independence from Oil Day, by pledging to make more gas-free trips. This campaign aims to get more Americans on bicycles this summer, recognizing that half of all driving trips are under two miles in length. With national gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon, and with mass transit increasingly crowded, Americans are discovering how easy and cost-effective it is to commute by bicycle, sending bike ridership numbers higher than ever. More people are recognizing the economic benefits of biking for transportation, not to mention the health and environmental benefits, says Leah Shahum, Executive Director of the 9,000-member San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “We urge more Americans to do their part by taking the Gas-Free Fridays pledge this Summer.”

San Francisco has seen a 30% increase in the number of people commuting by bicycle in the past year alone.

New York City has seen a 75% increase in bicycle commuting since 2000. “Sales of commuter bikes doubled this year in New York City, and many local bike shops have simply sold out,” says Paul Steely White, Executive Director of the 6,000-member Transportation Alternatives.

Bicycle riding in Portland has doubled in the last five years. “Many people in Portland are trying bicycling for the first time because of the high cost of driving,” says Scott Bricker, Executive Director of the 5,000-member Bicycle Transportation Alliance. “They would rather spend $4 on a light lunch or to buy a locally hand-crafted beer, rather than on a gallon of gas.”

Bicycle traffic on Philadelphia’s bridges increased 15% in the last year. “There has never been a better time to declare independence from your car and enjoy the freedom and benefits of using your bike,” said Alex Doty, Executive Director of the 1,200-member Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia.

Washington D.C. saw a 100% increase in the number of cyclists between 2004 and 2006. “What really strikes me is the diversity of cyclists we are seeing,” says Eric Gilliland, Executive Director of the 7,000-member Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA). “It’s no longer just men in spandex, but women in dresses, men in suits and people of all ages and races.” As part of the July 4^th celebrations on the National Mall, WABA will be offering two free valet bike parking locations as a way to encourage more people to ride their bikes to the fireworks.  The bike valets will be located at 15^th and Independence Ave SW and on the south side of the Lincoln Memorial.  Both valets will be in operation from 2pm to 10pm.

Advocates hope that they can encourage even more Americans to develop healthy, sustainable commuting habits that will ease the financial burdens of skyrocketing gas prices and reduce our country’s dependence on oil. In one year, riding a bicycle versus owning and driving will save an individual $8,000. On average, commuting 10 miles a day by bike instead of car burns 110,250 calories (keeping off 30 pounds of fat each year) and saves 3,500 lbs. of greenhouse gas emissions each year. “Today we are calling on our representatives in Washington D.C. to lessen our nations’ overdependence on oil and to offer Americans the greater freedoms and efficiencies of bicycling, says Paul Steely White. “We urge them to give direct and better federal assistance to our nation’s 20 most populous cities so that they can establish safe bicycle networks, bike to transit facilities and public bicycle-share programs."

Bike Arlington Satisfaction Survey

They want to know how they're doing.

Safety Studies

A couple of safety studies worth writing about. The first is the Post re-reporting on Ian Walker's famous 2006 Bicycle Helmet study as part of an article about risk.

Walker rode a bicycle equipped with a distance sensor, video camera and a computer. Over 15-to-20-minute periods, he rode with his helmet on, then with his helmet off. He rode some segments three feet from the curb and others closer to the edge of the road. With each iteration, he changed a single variable. In the interest of being rigorous, he even obtained a shoulder-length wig of curly black hair, so that some passing motorists would think he was a woman.

It is not known whether any drivers turned around for a look after they passed the bicyclist. If they did, they would have been puzzled: "It was slightly embarrassing, because I had a beard at the time," Walker said. "I spent a couple of days going up and down the road wig on, and a couple of days going up and down the road, wig off."

Walker was trying to figure out whether his interventions changed the way drivers passed his bike. He came to two conclusions: Cars gave him more leeway when drivers thought he was a woman with curly black hair. And they gave him less leeway -- getting dangerously close -- when he wore a helmet.

Walker thinks drivers are influenced by unconscious stereotypes -- they may believe that female bicyclists are less steady, and that helmeted bikers are pros.

Again, it would be an error to draw the simplistic conclusion that bike helmets are a bad idea. Wearing a helmet does seem to change how you and other people on the road perceive risk -- but doing away with helmet laws could have unintended consequences, too.

"One big problem when you talk about risk is the extent to which people have an accurate idea of it -- I don't believe people have an accurate idea of the risks they are looking at," Walker said. "If they have just seen something happen to another person, people believe it is more likely to happen to them."

 

I've mentioned this before. FABB mentioned this article too. I'm not sure I've mentioned the criticism of the report which is here, with a response from Dr. Walker.

It is curious that the BBC report on the study focused just on helmet wearing as the main factor affecting drivers' responses. The position on the roadway variable was ignored. We note that in the BBC photo, the test cyclist is riding a bicycle with an upright position and large black panniers. That would probably have an effect on car drivers, since the panniers add extra width and very likely increased passing distances. Users of side-mounted flags report the same effect. And an upright cyclist might indeed be perceived as more likely to be unsteady, helmet or no. We speculate that perhaps the clearance would be even less for a rider who appeared to be a racer and seemed more likely to be holding a steady road position. But that might have nothing at all to do with whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Children weaving along the road here get more clearance than other riders, whether or not they wear a helmet. So the study is interesting, but the reporting on it would be a lot more useful if it included the findings on some of the other factors instead of trying to marginalize the helmet as "good for kids" and useful only in "low speed falls." We have enough experience here with helmets and car crashes to have convinced the cycling community that the protection offered even in a car crash is real and not controversial. And we disagree with the author's conclusion that anything he measured indicates that the helmeted cyclist is more likely to be sideswiped.

The second study is from the City of Toronto. It seems it's the study from which the "cycling on the sidewalk is dangerous" conclusion comes. It's filled with a lot of good information.The study came out of a recommendation by the regional coroner to study collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles.

Almost 30% of the cyclists involved in reported motor vehicle collisions were cycling on the sidewalk immediately prior to their collisions, making this the most frequent possible contributing factor. Sidewalk cycling was much more common in collisions involving cyclists
under age eighteen than those involving adult cyclists. It was also more widespread in collisions that occurred outside the city's central area.

But later

It is impossible to say whether fewer collisions would have occurred overall if all the cyclists had been riding on the roadway. A study of Toronto commuter cyclists suggests that cyclists who frequently use sidewalks tend to have higher crash rates, even on roadways, than cyclists who always ride on the road. Simply advising (or forcing) these cyclists to use the roads could result in more on-road collisions, which tend to yield more serious injuries. Enforcement will never eliminate sidewalk cycling as long as cyclists feel unsafe using the road. An effective long term strategy must be based on creating a safer and more comfortable road environment for cyclists, and helping motorists and cyclists understand how to share the road more safely.

A more interesting fact (since this is hardly damning evidence) is that the top 7 causes of accidents appear to be the fault of motorists.[I could be reading this table wrong, but I don't think I am based on the descriptions later in the study]

In fact looking at this table, 76.6% of accidents were attributed to drivers where as 17.3% are the fault of cyclists (and the other are unknown). Of course, as my wife often points out, in most accidents there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim - which is not captured here. Nonetheless, this differs from the non-scientific Bay Area study quite a bit.

Cyclists were attributed with disobeying traffic controls in 45 cases, and drivers in 37 but the report states that due to spotty reporting:

it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control.

And they add - emphasis mine -

For example, while there may be a perception that many cyclists recklessly disobey stop-signs and traffic signals, our analysis shows that less than 3% of collisions involve a cyclist failing to stop at a controlled intersection. Targeted stop-sign enforcement campaigns along busy cycling routes may result in large numbers of tickets being issued, but their effectiveness in improving traffic safety is questionable.

The conclusions section is a very good read. Some of the conclusions are no surprise: Young people have more collisions, cycling in the dark is more dangerous, taxis are often over-represented, etc... The report comes out in favor of bike lanes (modestly), education (duh!) and against heavy-handed enforcement - on cyclists.

The limitations of enforcement are apparent when one considers that the most easily enforced and frequently ticketed cycling offences (rolling through a stop sign, not having a bell) rarely result in collisions. On the other hand, some of the driving infractions that frequently result in collisions and serious injuries (unsafe passing, opening a door without checking for traffic, failing to yield the right-of-way) are difficult to enforce unless a collision actually occurs. This would suggest that these offences should be treated very seriously when they are implicated in collisions, so that drivers become more aware of the potentially serious consequences.

Jim Oberstar on Transportation

GGW points us to a town hall discussion with Jim Moran and James Oberstar. It's entitled "From Roads to Rails," but it will be a discussion on the future of Transportation in Northern Virginia. A future that should include cycling. Oberstar is a strong cycling advocate.

Who: Featuring  Special Guest Speaker: Rep. Jim Oberstar,  Chairman of the House Transportation Committee

When: Monday,  July 7th
          7:30PM to 9:30PM

Where: Freddie  Mac Headquarters
          1551 Park Run Dr.
          McLean,   Virginia 22102
          Building 4 – the Pavilion  Room
  Map

What: Congressman Moran to host a town hall discussion on transportation issues facing Northern Virginia. Rep. Jim Oberstar will provide his perspective as the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives on matters involving transportation.

Unfortunately, it's on the same night as both Arlington and Alexandria's BAC meetings, but it would nice if some cyclists showed up. Asked a few questions.

ICC Fail Part 2

Jack Cochrane of MoBike sent me some comments on my ICC Fail post

The problem is that FHWA and other agencies did not view the path as justifying the additional environmental impact.  The path would of course get fewer users than the 6-lane highway, but would increase the footprint of the project by a more significant percentage it seems.  That's how these things get looked at.  It doesn't just hurt cyclists.  There are some people who are losing their homes simply because environmental agencies wouldn't allow the highway to follow the master-planned route through Rock Creek, in order to avoid environmental impacts deemed more important than people's homes.  These trade-offs are largely not MDOT's call.  Of course MDOT is complicit.  MDOT was afraid all along that the slightest bit of extra environmental impact might cause the project to not be granted the environmental permits, as was about to happen in 1997.  So MDOT took a really dim view of the trail.  They never fought for it.  They didn't look for ways to make it work by buying parkland elsewhere as they did to mitigate other impacts, whatever.  They didn't study trail options in the parks.  MDOT Sec. Flanagan called the trail "fluff" and said he didn't want to hear about it any more during one of the EIS internal sessions. 

But M-NCPPC is also to blame.  They never wanted the trail through the parks either.  I believe they were arguing against the trail in the parks all along, more than we realized.  Now with MDOT basically out of the picture and the road mostly designed, M-NCPPC's opposition is shown in stark relief. 

Money of course was a huge issue.  But I feel compelled to explain the environmental issue to people.  The whole NEPA / EIS process is stacked against trails in some ways, and MDOT doesn't have full control over that.  Plus other agencies like M-NCPPC were screwing things up.  However you're right that money is a huge issue.  The 7-mile trail being built will cost $35-40M.  The full trail might cost $120-130M according to more recent estimates if built right next to the highway, but building the trail "down in the woods" rather than on every long ICC bridge in the parks would cost significantly less.  That's what we want the county to support (SHA having already designed the bridges without room for a trail).  MDOT didn't study this option.  EPA said publicly (feeling some heat from trail supporters) that it would not oppose a trail through the woods.  But that idea never got far.  MDOT simply refused to spend more than the $40M.  They wouldn't even spend a little to make room for a future trail under some underpasses.  Flanagan almost laughed when we said we wanted a $100M trail (I met with him in person).

Believe me, we begged for wider/longer bridges.  We gave Flanagan pages of analysis.  They wouldn't spend anything extra at all.  They thought it would be for naught because "no one will build the trail between the bridges" (like between U.S. 29 and New Hampshire Ave.).

The road design is unfortunately set in stone by the EIS permits.  But there's no reason why the path can't be built just beyond the right-of-way, or even within it I think after the ICC is built. 

Park & Planning's claim that a path shouldn't be built next to the highway because of environmental impacts doesn't pass the laugh test.  There's no permit issue now, no NEPA concerns.  Just Park & Planning judgment (or lack thereof!).  That's the battle we have to fight, in front of the Planning Board who will hear the issue in July.  The PB recommended against the trail in the very same areas, for the very same reasons, in 2005.   That's what we're afraid of.  They said all sorts of nice things about trails then too, and claimed that's why they support this trail (P.S. the horrible sidepath trail, not the good trail).  But the Planning Board chair is actually a strong bike supporter now, so we'll see.  In any case, we went to the County Council in 2005 and they unanimously overruled the Planning Board decision and said the trail should be built within the ICC right-of-way from Needwood Road to the county line.  So we'll do that again if we have to.  Funny, Park & Planning staff cite the 2005 Planning Board decision as reason not to put the trail in the parks, but when reminded of the Council overruling of that decision, staff says "well, the council said 'within the right-of-way' and the state has precluded that option" -- a technicality since the council simply meant near the highway as opposed to the detour route.

He points out that MoBike does not support the trail on the deckover

not fighting for the trail along the ICC through the deckover structure because it is in fact very  tight in order to avoid impacting homeowners.  We don't want to further impact those homeowners who really are getting shafted.  That's the section where the ICC was never master-planned and homes are being sacrificed to protect wetlands to the south.  The alternate route is fairly direct and not too bad, IF it really can really follow the yet unbuilt M-83 (another highway) as advertised -- that's the western third of the trail alignment as shown there, and IF the other links can really be built.  The original trail plan was to forge the path straight along the original ICC alignment, shown as the gray band on the map there.  That solution will be difficult politically I think (the Council never supported it) and in fact it dumps you somewhat further south than we want to be. Nevertheless we'll argue for that too.

Our lead proposal in the US Highway 29 area is to build a dedicated trail bridge over Rt. 29 at a narrow point about halfway between the ICC and Briggs Chaney Road, with connections along the ramps back down to the ICC right-of-way.

He has other criticisms

the connection between the ICC trail and Matthew Henson Trail is much too circuitous.  That connection is just as important as connecting the two parts of  the ICC trail itself.  Matthew Henson heads 5 miles west/SW and connects to Rockville, very important.

Jack points out that M-NCPPC is not bound by the EPA and are free to do what they want. He also mentioned that for many of the sidewalks to be "upgraded" to 8 feet, there simply isn't the ROW to do that - so even that is a pipedream.  It sounds like there are two factions within parks - one pro-trail and one anti-trail.

If you support a better trail you should 1) Write the Planning board and tell them to reject the Amendment to the Master Plan - the Amendment "would remove the good trail from the master plan and replace it with the bad one." and/or 2) go to the July 10th meeting to speak (You can sign up online). Hard to do if you have a job, I know.

Smartbike Start Update

DCist is reporting a NET start date of August 1st.

due to Pepco still working on getting electricity installed in all of the bike racks mean that SmartBike won't actually be operational until August 1 at the earliest, "but no guarantees." Seven out of the ten pilot racks are installed and operational, but three more still need to be completed.

Local Bicycle shop wins Award for going Green

Mt. Airy Bicycles⁄College Park Bicycles was the winner in the multiple-store category. A statement from the magazine said, ‘‘Larry Black, owner of Mt. Airy Bicycles and College Park Bicycles in Maryland, started thinking green ... when he opened his first shop. By 1976, he was using solar power to heat the water. He now purchases wind credits to offset his businesses’ energy use. He recycles tires, patches and inner tubes, uses recycled paper, buys hybrid company vehicles and tries to stock products from sustainable-minded brands.”

Black said in a statement, ‘‘We would like to share some of our operations so we can encourage other business to help with their conservation, sustainability, and ecological concerns. We are not only saving the planet, we are saving quite a bit of money and passing on a better environment for all to enjoy.”

Despite other reports, he doesn't see people making much of a switch to bicycle commuting.

‘‘Not yet,” said Black, who sells bikes ranging in price from a few hundred dollars to thousands. ‘‘We’ve seen a little upturn, but not that big. And the gas crises in 1971 and 1979 didn’t put people on bikes. I think we should see an upturn, at least a modest one, once people discover all the healthy things about getting on bikes.”