Georgetown Transportation Study

Thanks to GreaterGreater Washington for a heads-up on the Georgetown Transportation Study that started last fall. David writes about how the "emphasis is on improving pedestrian and bicycle safety," according to DDOT Ward 2 rep Chris Ziemann though most of the changes involve creating new one way streets and reversing others.

Despite the supposed focus on pedestrian and bicycle improvements, the report spends most of its ink on "Level of Service" (LOS) charts, which measure the average delay a car would wait at each intersection. This is a traditional tool of traffic planners, but thinking of transportation in these terms always leads to planners wanting to widen intersections and add lanes in ways that ultimately make an area more appealing to drive and less appealing to walk, pushing people toward driving over walking and further adding pressure to improve LOS.

Looking at the report with an eye on biking here's what I find.

Under transportation issues, they mention the following improvements:

11. bike-vehicle conflicts at the Key Bridge - add bicycle warning signs and later bicycle activated  flashers
17. high bike volume on K Street - Install pylons to improve driver awareness and later complete the trail network
18. bike-vehicle conflicts at K and Rock Creek Parkway - add bicycle warning signs and later motion sensitive flashers
24. the inadequacy of the Rose Park Trail - complete the sidewalk and trail connection

Under "additional Options" they listed

Bicycle improvements

• Bicycle lanes
• Smart bike location south of M Street on Wisconsin (short rental of bicycles throughout DC – pilot program of DDOT)
• Bike boxes at intersections allowing bikes to go to the front of the intersection and queue rather than within the lane of traffic.

This leaves out the most desperate need of massive amounts of bike parking - it may be the hardest place to find good bike parking - even though the recognize that auto parking needs improvement. And there appears to be no actual plans to add bike lanes or bike boxes, just a recognition that those are options. There's a plan for bus only lanes on Wisconsin that may be for bikes too (my supposition, it's not mentioned).

The plan seems geared to moving cars and only pays lip service to bike safety (in my opinion).

If you live, work or bike in Georgetown you may want to get involved in this process by attending the next meeting in June (no date that I could find yet) or by

1. Providing  comments through this web site
2. Providing written comments to Chris Ziemann (DDOT Transportation Planning Specialist, Ward 2, 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20009)
3. Checking  out the web site on a regular basis

Comments

[Contrarian]

Some great observations here. I particularly like that you've picked up on the built-in bias in Level-of-Service calculations. It's a bureaucratic axiom that what gets measured gets done, and it's telling that there is no counterpart to LOS for pedestrians or cyclists.

Something to keep in mind is that the scaling of LOS is designed to drive improvements for motorists. The lowes LOS score -- F -- represents a wait at an intersection of 60 seconds or more. In LOS terminology this is described as "unacceptable." In reality, while no one wants to wait longer than they have to, 60 seconds hardly sounds like the end of the world.

You've also hit upon a major issue, which is parking on M Street. I've come to the conclusion that they've deliberately removed anything a bike can lock onto, because the sidewalk is too narrow. This would be perfect place to experiment with bike racks in on-street parking spaces. I've heard advocates claim that 28 bikes can be parked in the space of one car; let's see if it's true!

[washcycle]

I have heard of other business districts (not Georgetown though) rejecting the free installation of bike parking by DDOT. I'm not sure the reason why. And other areas have pushed back against SmartBike - as though they don't understand the value of increased foot traffic.

[charlie]

Actually, the sidewalk congestion issue is very real. I would route bikes on Prospect instead of M street for one block -- much safer for all involved. I suspect bikers won't pay much attention, however.

In terms of bike parking in Gtwon, most of the parking turns into rush hour lanes so I don't see how you can take one spot on M street and turn it into bike spot (i.e. it would need to be removed during rush hour).

the real problem in Gtown is too many buses....

[washcycle]

The problem is not too many buses. Buses reduce the number of cars. It's the only form of transit G'Town has. The problem is too much space set aside

Prospect is up a very steep hill and doesn't run the length of Georgetown. It is a poor substitute.

They need to 1) End parking on one side of M Street. 2) use that space to make for wider sidewalks with ample bike parking 3) remove rush hour parking restrictions allowing for a bike lanes to be added.

[Contrarian]

I ride through Georgetown all the time, and it doesn't need bike lanes. It's very easy to bike there, traffic generally goes slower than a bike.

[washcycle]

Right. Few streets new bike lanes. Few streets even need streets. Part of my ride is off-road so therefore we don't need roads.

The question isn't whether it needs bike lanes, but whether it would be better served by them. I bike on M Street all the time too and slow traffic slows me down. I would like bike lanes so that I can more easily pass cars not for safety.

I have changed my mind on this though. They actually need to get rid of all the parking on M Street. It's too crowded to waste space on parking. To maximum throughput they need wider sidewalks, bus/bike only lanes (enforced), and three auto lanes in the middle (center turning lane).