Hidden Creek Country Club to get housing, recreation, restored stream and linear parks, all connected to the W&OD Trail

There are discussions underway to redevelop the Hidden Creek Country Club which is on the north side of the trail in Reston. It appears that the plan will include a trail connection from the W&OD trail to the "Blue Trail" which goes under Wiehle Avenue and up to North Shore Drive. And then also to a linear park going east-west along the stream through the golf course.
Between 2.5 and 3.5 miles of trails would be added to the grand park, as well as recreational amenities like indoor tennis, a garden of remembrance, a playground, a splash park, and a dog park. The company is also contemplating renovation of the Temporary Road Recreation Area and restoring between 3,000 and 5,000 feat of degraded streams. The park would connect with the Washington & Old Dominion Trail and other nearby destinations like Reston Town Center and Lake Anne Village Center. 
Screenshot 2018-09-25 at 12.10.06 AM
image from www.restonnow.com
For more on the vision, go to page 69 of this document
I'll point out that there is also some pretty organized opposition to converting the golf course into parks and housing. They would like to leave it a golf course or other "open space". This same group prevented the conversion of the golf course to the south of the Dulles Toll Road. To their advantage the Master Plan and County Plan has these courses as golf courses, so that would have to be changed in this case. 
If you look at the top photo, you'll see that a gas utility corridor goes north south through the area. That line/corridor runs from the Washington Gas facility along Gude Road in Rockville south to this point and then on to Brentsville, VA. I'm not saying you could build a trail on it all the way between those points, but it would be cool if you could. 

Cyclist hit in yesterday's hit-and-run has passed away

A cyclist was struck yesterday in a hit-and-run crash in the 1200 block of Constitution Ave NW yesterday. Today the police announced that he has died. 

He has been identified as 64 year old Thomas Hendricks Hollowell of Arlington, VA. The driver, whom the police are looking for, drove a dark colored sedan through the intersection on a red traffic signal, striking the cyclist at high speed.

Hollowell was on his way to work Monday morning at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. A coworker of the victim, said Hollowell rode his bike to work every day.

VDOT to present final design for the W&OD trail bridge over Route 29 on Oct 11th

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will host a community meeting to present the final design and aesthetic details for the Washington & Old Dominion Trail Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge over U.S. Route 29 (Lee Highway) in Arlington. The design reflects input received during workshops held on April 5, May 2, and June 13, 2017.
The trail bridge is being built as a component of the I-66 Inside the Beltway Eastbound Widening Project. 
Thursday, October 11, 2018
6:30-8:30 p.m.
Presentation at 7 p.m.
Yorktown High School
5200 Yorktown Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22207
This bridge is the next in a series of projects to grade separate the W&OD Trail. The first was in 1990, when a bridge was built over Route 28 and most recently last year when Belmont Road was built to go over the trail. 

Cycling, gentrification and class politics in Washington DC

There's a paper from 2013 that I once had access to, but now do not about Adrian Fenty, biking and politics. Here's the abstract:

Promoting cycling and building bike lanes would seem to be an uncontroversial way for progressive mayors to build up their ‘green’ and ‘smart city’ reputations. After all, cycling promotes health, reduces traffic and fights global warming. Yet, surprisingly, it was former Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s enthusiasm for building bike lanes that, at least in part, brought his once-promising political career to a sudden end in 2010. Drawing on a synthesis of Bourdieu’s field theory and Stuart Hall’s concept of articulation, this article offers a case study of cycling and class politics in Washington DC. In particular, this article examines how, during the 2010 Mayoral election, cycling became articulated with wider struggles over gentrification and race. A concluding section draws on the case to argue that Hall’s concept of articulation offers a useful corrective for the subtle bias toward social reproduction in Bourdieu’s theory of social fields.

It sounds fascinating. If anyone has access and wants to tell us about it in the comments, I'm all ears. 

What's the schedule for my favorite Montgomery County Project?

image from apps.montgomerycountymd.gov

In February, I mentioned that the budget for trails was being cut in Montgomery County's FY19 Capital Budget and six-year FY19-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). And in June that they were going to delay the expansion of the Montrose parkway and to defer adding two lanes to Goshen Road South in Gaithersburg until after 2024 to free up money for transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects. 

The CIP has several other bicycle projects in it that I didn't mention, including a delay for the Met Branch Trail, so there's a list below.

  • Build an on-street route for the Capital Crescent Trail through the Bethesda CBD and funding for the Bethesda Loop Trail identified in the recently approved Bethesda Downtown Sector Plan. It will consist of
    • protected bike lanes on Woodmont Avenue between Norfolk Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue ($1,860,000). Completion in FY21
    • protected bike lanes on Montgomery Avenue between Woodmont Avenue and Pearl Street ($1,004,000). Completion in FY21
    • and bike lanes on Norfolk Avenue/Cheltenham Drive between Woodmont Avenue and Pearl Street ($91,000) and on Pearl Street between Cheltenham Drive and Montgomery A venue ($45,000). Completion in FY20.
  • Widen the MacArthur Boulevard shared-use path to 8', widen the roadway to 26' to allow sufficient width for on-road biking, and provide a 5' -wide buffer between the road and the shared-use path for the 2.1 mile stretch between Oberlin Avenue and the District of Columbia boundary. Completion in 2022.
  • Extend the Metropolitan Branch Trail north along the CSX tracks beneath Burlington Avenue (MD 410) and next to Selim Road to Georgia A venue. The final phase will have the trail cross Georgia A venue on a new bridge and continue along the tracks to the Silver Spring Transit Center. Completion delayed to 2022. 
  • Cycle tracks on Fenton Street and Dixon Avenue-by FY22
  • Construction of the missing 1.7-mile bikepath link along the south side of Needwood Road between the Shady Grove Metro Station on the west and the ICC Bike Trail on the east. Completion in FY19
  • Reconfigure Bradley Boulevard between Goldsboro Road and Wilson Lane to have a 5' -wide bike lane in each direction, an
    8'-wide shared-use path on the northeast side, and a 5'-wide sidewalk on the southwest side. Completion in FY26.
  • Widen the 1.1-mile segment of Snouffer School Road from near Woodfield Road to Centerway Road to a 5-lane arterial (two lanes in each direction with a continuous center tum-lane) with 5½'-wide bike lanes, an 8'-wide hiker-biker path on the north side. Completion Fall 2019
  • Build a muli-use path along the 3.3-mile stretch of Seven Locks Road between Montrose Road and Bradley Boulevard in Potomac. Completion in 2024.
  • Add bikelanes to Clarksburg Road. Two projects. Completion 2020 and 2022.
  • BPPA subprojects in Wheaton and Glenmont. Completed by FY24.
  • Veirs Mill BPPA projects by FY25.
  • Protected bike lanes along Marinelli Road in White Flint by FY19
  • Increase funding for the Bikeway Minor Projects Program to provide more substantial construction improvements. Funding is planned to build bikeways along sections of Avery Road, Emory Lane, Muncaster Mill Road, Executive Boulevard, Dr. Bird Road, Riffle Ford Road, Layhill Road, and a Washington Grove Connector Trail. 
  • Complete the construction of Frederick Road Bike Path ( a new 2.5-mile-long 10'-wide bike path along the west side of Frederick Road (MD 355) from Stringtown Road in Clarksburg to the existing hiker-biker trail on MD 355 near Milestone Manor Lane). Completion in 2020.
  • a 3.5-mile-long 10-12'-wide shared-use path that would loop through the Life Science Center, the to-be-redeveloped Public Safety Training Academy property, the future Johns Hopkins development, and the Crown Farm. Completion in FY26
  • A bike/ped passageway between the Forest Glen Metro Station and the east side of Georgia A venue. Completion in FY25
  • Protected bike lane on Goldsboro Road in Bethesda between River Road and MacArthur Boulevard.
  • A shallow hiker-biker underpass beneath Rockville Pike to connect Walter Reed to the existing west-side Medical Center Metro entrance, the station's bus bays, and the NIH campus. Completion in summer 2020.
  • The MD 355-Clarksburg Shared Use Path, along the east side of MD 355 between Stringtown Road and Snowden Farm Parkway. Start in 2024
  • Build the new Capital Crescent Trail and the Silver Spring Green Trail. Completion 2022. 
  • Vision Zero - improves trail crossings throughout the County as part of the County's Vision Zero action plan to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries.
  • Continue funding for Hard Surface Trail Renovations, Enterprise Facility Improvements, Energy Conservation, ADA
    Compliance, Planned Lifecycle Asset Replacement, and Minor New Construction projects.
  • Build an 8' - wide hiker-biker trail along the east side of Falls Road (MD 189) from River Road to Dunster Road, about four miles (this project is again being delayed). Completed in 2025, at best.

In addition there is a plan to study extending the rebuilt MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway to Angler's Inn. 

More details can be found here

Bicycle Friendly Community update (DC won Gold like, 6 months ago)

image from pbs.twimg.com

Photo by Martin Austermuhle

It's been a while, spring 2014 I think, since I last updated our local Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) and so why not do it now.  The Bicycle Friendly America program is a program that the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) uses to create goals for cities to improve, measure their improvement, and encourage friendly competition. The long-term goal is to help states, communities, business and universities to make bicycling a real transportation and recreation option for all people.

The current levels for BFC are  Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and Diamond, but no community has achieved Diamond yet. There's also an Honorable Mention.

Here are the updates (not counting renewals and being very generous with the term "local"):

In Fall 2014    Hagerstown, MD - Bronze.

Spring 2015    Sailbury, MD and Norfolk, VA - Bronze. 

Fall 2015        Virginia Beach - Bronze

Spring 2016   Columbia, MD - Bronze; Catonsville, MD - Honorable Mention.

Fall 2016        Vienna, VA - Bronze. 

Spring 2017    Howard County, MD and Fairfax County, MD - Bronze

Fall 2017         No local awards

Spring 2018    Washington, DC - Gold


As I wrote back in March when DC was awarded Gold, it's an achievement to be proud of, but it doesn't mean the work is done. 

DC debuted at Bronze back in 2003 as part of the second class of awardees. By that time Portland, Palo Alto, and Corvallis, OR were already Gold. Davis, CA debuted at Platinum in 2006, by which time there were six Gold level cities. It took DC eight years to get to Silver, and another seven to get to Gold.

Local bike advocates can take some pleasure from the speed at which DC has climbed up the ranks. In 2006 it was tied with 44 other cities at Bronze with 22 others ahead of it, but it is now among 29 Gold level cities with only five ahead of it. 15 years later, Palo Alto and Corvallis are still Gold.

That being said, DC is still far behind other cities. Portland moved up to Platinum more than a decade ago, and Davis has been at Platinum for longer than that. Though Platinum sounds world-class, the LAB's 12 percent mode share (percentage of travelers or number of trips using a particular type of transportation) benchmark wouldn't even get a city into the world's top 50. DC is closer to 5.5 percent bike mode share.

LAB recently created a new, higher level — Diamond — that would require a city to hit benchmarks similar to average European cities, but no American city has reached that level yet.

On that post, and elsewhere, I've heard some push back on the "Gold" ranking. That DC is hardly Gold because of this problem or that one. Or that "we're supposed to be a Gold city, but (thing that sucks)". It's the equivalent of "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't (simple thing)." I'll agree that in retrospect, the use of the term Gold for such a low level is unfortunate. We think of Gold as the best - liking winning the Gold Medal, earning a Gold Star, or calling the ideal test the "Gold Standard".  The latter also possibly the result of confusion about Gold as the best. Maybe they should have started lower - Tin, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum - which would put DC at Silver now. 

But when LAB says DC is a Gold level community, they aren't saying that DC is the very best. That's pretty clear because there are two level above Gold, with other communities above them, and those communities below the best communities in the world. They're just saying that DC is 3 levels up a 5 point scale. They're saying that DC is one of the more bike friendly communities in the United States (which is true, in part because the competition is weak). 

So hooray, DC is Gold, Alexandria and Arlington are Silver and Rockville is Bronze. Those are no small accomplishments. They should be proud (while Germantown, Silver Spring, Bowie and Clinton should be filled with a deep shame). But it's not a stopping point. No more than a Golden Wedding anniversary is. 

DDOT promoted George Branyan to Manager of the Active Transportation Branch

Last year Jim Sebastian, who came to DDOT back in 2001 as the Bicycle Coordinator, was promoted to be the Associate Director for Planning and Sustainability which left no specific person in charge of the Active Transportation Branch. That's the group that manages biking, walking, Capital Bikeshare, Transportation Demand Management, Safe Routes to Schools and probably some other things I missed.

At this month's BAC meeting it was announced that George Branyan, who's been DDOT's Pedestrian Program Coordinator for the last 13 years, will be filling that role permanently (update: though it has been split into two with Kim Lucas as the other person taking over part of the portfolio). I guess now they need to hire a new pedestrian lead. 

Anyway, that fills one of the three lead jobs that were empty when the year started. 

I'm not sure if Arlington is going to fill the Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs Manager job that David Goodman used to do or if they're just going to stick with their current staff (I'm less familiar with how it works over there and the BAC doesn't have it's notes up from the December meeting when it was discussed). 

I'm also not aware if Alexandria has hired anyone to fill the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Manager position that they advertised. 

Update: Darren Buck is Alexandria's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Manager. Ritch Viola was transferred into David Goodman's old role. George was promoted, but the job was split in two, with Kim Lucas now overseeing bikeshare & TDM. DDOT recently posted jobs to fill three bike/ped positions: George's, Kim's, and Darren's.

Bike sharing helps cities achieve goals; newspaper and researcher reports otherwise

image from placemanagementandbranding.files.wordpress.com

Bike sharing has a lot of benefits. In addition to providing an alternative mode of transport, saving users money and travel time, increasing access, making roads safer and encouraging bicycle ownership; it reduces GHG emissions, is good for public health and reduces congestion. The last three should not be surprising since bike sharing results in a net modal shift from driving

The Phase II member survey results show that bikesharing is causing a diverse array of modal shifts within the different cities surveyed.

The survey also found that bikesharing reduced respondents driving by large amounts in all cities. In Montreal and Toronto, 29% and 35% reported driving less. In MinneapolisSaint Paul and Salt Lake City, 53% and 55% reported driving less, and in Mexico City, 53% reported driving less. Very few respondents reported driving more.

And since driving is a significant cause of GHG emissions, bad for public health and a cause of congestion this is exactly the outcome we'd expect.

I'll note that some of these effects are counter-balanced by people who shift from transit and walking.  Those shifts involve more complicated trade-offs, with smaller impacts and are not as consistent as shifts from driving. For example, with walking

More respondents in Mexico City, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Salt Lake City increased walking than decreased it. In Montreal and Toronto, more reported walking less often than more.

Similar complexities are found with transit and biking. But those shifts don't change the fact that bikesharing reduces GHG emissions and improves health.

So it was surprising when the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Times recently had a disturbing headline about bikesharing "Boris bikes don't improve health or reduce pollution." It was also wrong. But there are layers of wrongness built into it. It's like a game of telephone where each person is not only getting the statement wrong due to normal errors, but each is also acting in bad faith. 

The Times was a little wrong

The Times article was basically regurgitating a press release from the Royal Geographic Society about a recent study on bikesharing, so when it was quoting it - which it did often - it was at least getting that right. But even then it got the main things wrong.

They state that the study shows that bike sharing schemes "do not cut carbon dioxide emissions" a claim highlighted, with the most damage, in the title. But that's wrong. The claim from the RGS study is that "Bike share schemes ... are not very effective at ...reducing CO2 emissions" which is not the same thing as doing nothing. I'm not very effective at cleaning dishes, but they aren't as dirty when I finish as when I started (sorry everyone I've ever shared a house with). 

The article goes on to claim that bikesharing bikes "aren't having a positive effect on public health" and that "people on the outskirts [of cities], who are likely to be on lower incomes and in greater need, do not benefit." Each of these statements wrongly represent what the RGS press release says. As the press release says there aren't very effective, not that they're doing nothing. The underlying studies make it clear that they DO have benefits for health and CO2 reduction and that they do benefit people with lower incomes. 

The RGS press release was a little wrong too

As noted, the press release from the Royal Geographic Society "Bike sharing schemes mostly benefit healthy, wealthy, young white men" makes different claims than those in the Times article. Mostly that it exaggerates the claims from doing "little" to doing nothing. 

But even the press release doesn't match the work by Dr. Médard de Chardon. [The press release is about the presentation of a study by Médard de Chardon. It doesn't say which one, but much of the territory is covered in his study on "Bicycle sharing system 'success' determinants" so I'll be using that in this post]

The press release states that 

  1. The total amount of carbon produced in London from the rebalancing vans is not offset by the amount saved from use of the bike share scheme.
  2. They are not very effective at improving health
  3. They are not very effective at lessening road congestion
  4. They are not very effective at promoting transport equity

But here again the claims in the release state things with more certainty than they're stated in the paper and they elevate the negative results of outliers without noting that they are the exception. For example on item 1 above, the paper says.

Multiple studies have shown that publicized estimates of carbon dioxide reductions are often overstated as only a small portion of car trips are replaced using Bike sharing systems (BSS) (Ricci, 2015). In the case of London it is estimated that the vehicles rebalancing bicycles within the system may surpass any emission reductions from modal shift (Fishman et al., 2014a).

So the rebalancing vehicles MAY offset emissions, but they may not. Furthermore, of the four cities studied by Fishman, London is the only city where they found that mode shift didn't offset re-balancing, so it seems deceptive to make that the "example." 

The claim that they aren't very effective at improving health is also not backed up by the study. Instead it says:

The shift from sedentary travel modes to cycling has clear health benefits but net quantities are overstated due to the reduction
in walking, which has greater health benefits for a fixed distance traveled.

Overstated is not a synonym for "ineffective."

On congestion, again the PR gets it wrong. The study calls the claims of congestion reduction "unproven", it does not say that they are proven in effective. 

Finally, on equity, the study does make the claim that bike sharing "members [are] more likely be wealthier, younger, white, male and own a car, compared to the local population" and that it is "one of the most inequitable forms of sustainable transportation infrastructures.” So one out of four isn't bad. Perhaps this is the part he should show as an example. [More on the equity issue below] 

The release also asks whether a bike-share system in which each bike is used less than twice a day (as many are) is the best use of public funding for cycling. That's a great question, but he's not an economist and he, as near as I can tell, he doesn't even try to answer it. 

Then he really goes off the rails. 

“In reality, bike sharing schemes are a false solution. They look sophisticated and are technologically cool, but they don’t create much useful or progressive change.

It’s worrying that we are getting bike share schemes instead of concrete improvements to transport infrastructure.”

A solution to what? His own studies show that they have many small, but real benefits. That seems to indicate that it's at least PART of the solution to some of the problems he brings up. And if it doesn't create much useful progress, the question is compared to what? He's not arguing that bike sharing is a bad thing, only that other things are better. That's always a complicated question and he makes  a poor case that something else is.   

I do agree with him when he says that it's important to more effectively redistribute public space for better cycling infrastructure, and if we have to make a choice between street changes and bike sharing (as they did in London) it's wise to ask which is the better investment. But this press release, and the 2017 study, don't do that.

The study is wrong too, and isn't really a study of 'success determinants'

Again, I'm going to use the 2017 study here and I recognize that he may have a new study out which would make this wrong.

Médard de Chardon's study is really a study of how many Trips each Bike takes per Day (TBD) in various systems (Of the 75 systems studied CaBi is 22nd with 3.0 TBD, 3rd best in the US). In that sense it's useful and interesting.

Where it gets off track is where it tries to push an agenda - namely that because many systems have a low TBD, bike-sharing is a poor use of resources. 

He first claims that "success" for bikesharing is not defined. And for that he cites a paper that states that 

Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Benefits include improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These benefits are unequally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution.

But, at least for Capital Bikeshare, that's not true. When the program was starting, MWCOG submitted an application to the US DOT for a TIGER grant. In that they clearly stated what they saw as the benefits/goals.

The benefits they foresaw were user cost savings, user travel time savings, increased access, congestion reduction, emissions reduction, healthcare cost savings and accident reduction. They also saw benefits in getting users to purchase and use their own bikes - something that just doesn't show up in tpbpd. 

Then they calculated the value of each trip at $1.20. So as long as the subsidy is less than that, it would seem the system is a success. I did the calculations after one year and showed that it was. Now if Médard de Chardon wants to reanalyze the MWCOG calculations, update them and/or make them more robust that would be great. But he doesn't.  And I'll note that of the 9 benefits listed here, his paper misses 5 of them. 

He then goes on to state that the benefits for road and public transit congestion, carbon emissions, cycling modal share, health and equity have been shown to be hard to measure, trivial or non-existent. But the studies he cites contradict that. One is quoted above listing all the benefits. Another merely says that "the majority of scheme users are substituting from sustainable modes of transport rather than the car" which is not the same as saying there is no mode shift from cars or even from modes that do less for health. The third, written before CaBi started doesn't even make that claim. But even the most damning of these, by Ricci, which says that "there is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution." (emphasis mine) also notes that nearly 20% of all bikeshare trips were shifted from car. There is no explanation for how hundreds of thousands of trips can be shifted from car to bikeshare without reducing congestion, emissions and pollution.  It seems the word "siginficantly" is doing all the work. Médard de Chardon does cite a study that claims that, in the case of London, the low car-to-bike shift rate combined with much higher than average rebalancing miles, leads to an increase in carbon emissions. It makes the case that in a city where few drive, bike-sharing will do little to reduce driving. 

But one thing Médard de Chardon does is cherry-picks his studies. If one claims that it does little to reduce emissions, but does improve health. He'll cite it when he talks about emissions and use another when he wants to talk about health. For example, he cites one study to make the claim that

Additionally, women using London’s BSS have reduced health benefits, compared to men, owing to increased rates of injury 

Which sounds negative, but that studies conclusion is that

London’s bicycle sharing system has positive health impacts overall, but these benefits are clearer for men than for women and for older users than for younger users.

Which sounds less negative. 

When he notes that the systems have benefits

They provide an alternative mode of transport, increase accessibility, trip resilience and flexibility, lower the barrier to exploring urban cycling, increase the visibility of bicycles, bicycle awareness by drivers and normalizing the image of cyclists in casual clothing

He then attacks those benefits on the grounds that they "do not spread evenly among classes and race," which is a way to minimize them. For that he relies on Melody L. Hoffman's "Bike lanes are white lanes."

There may be lessons to be gleaned from that book, but we should be clear that it's not a "study" of equity, it's not based on such a study and when she writes about bike sharing she's talking entirely about one system - Minneapolis' Nice Ride - and almost exclusively relying on interviews. So her claim that bike sharing is "one of the most inequitable forms of sustainable transportation infrastructure" in the United States; that's her opinion. It's not based on some metric of inequality and a comparison of various "forms of sustainable transportation infrastructure." 

It is true that there's an equity issue in bike sharing, but that is true within biking as a whole, and so if the argument is that we should not invest in bikesharing to instead invest in protected bike lanes, you're not really solving the problem. It's also true that Médard de Chardon's study does a bad job of making the case about equity. And it makes no attempt to show why a system which unevenly spreads benefits among classes and races does not benefit those with lower incomes. It's possible the benefits are uneven and that low income people still benefit. 

Finally, he makes a dubious claim that 1 TBD is a significant threshold since. 

This value is psychologically important as systems below this have some bicycles being unused each day. More worrisome are the 10 systems with ratings below 0.5 TDB, as this means most bicycles are not used on a daily basis

It may be that 1 TBD is so low that the costs exceed the benefits. Or that 0.5 is. But if so, it won't be for psychologically symbolic reasons. And it likely won't be universal. In an un-system like New York's, where the taxpayers pay nothing, who cares how low the TBD is? And as he notes, any attempt to maximize TBD run counter to efforts to increase equity. 

Just to pile on a bit, he also ignores the number of people who are encouraged by bikeshare to buy and ride their own bikes. 

This is the heart of his failure to define bike sharing as a false solution. He has no idea what level of TBD/subsidy is cost-effective. He has defined no set of metrics for defining benefits. He makes to attempt to set a cost on systems. It may be that London's system increases emissions but is still cost-effective. 

It would be fair of him to say that systems need to define goals and metrics for success. That they need to analyze those regularly to see if those goals are being met and to what extent. That they need to try to define those metrics as benefits and compare them to costs. But he's simply not in a position to call bike-sharing a false solution. Certainly not across the board, and not in a city like DC with 3.0 TBD and high car-to-bike mode shifting. 


So, I would love to see a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of bike-sharing across a broad spectrum of cities. But this isn't it. And without one I don't see how anyone can claim that they are a "false solution."

Cyclist killed in 3rd bike fatality in DC area this summer

The Post reports that

Mario Yattum, 33, of Lanham, was on his bike in the median at the intersection before he entered the roadway and was hit by a car travelling west on Annapolis Road, police said. Both the car and the bicycle were traveling on Annapolis Road near Morley Road about 10 p.m. when the collision occurred, according to the police.

This was on Sunday night. And here's the press release all the reporting is based on.


Work on Clarendon Circle Rebuild to start next week

Screenshot 2018-09-17 at 11.58.09 PM

Next week, Arlington County will start work on the Clarendon Circle intersection improvement project which will add bike lanes and a queue box to the intersection, along with a host of other improvements.  

There will be bike lanes, with green paint, in both directions on Clarendon Blvd/Wilson Blvd, and going east on Washington Blvd. There will also be a queue box for cyclists going from Washington Blvd to north bound Clarendon Blvd. There are already bike lanes on Wilson and Clarendon north of the intersection.  Update: the image below is the right one. The bike lane going south will continue south on Wilson and then onto Fairfax) 
image from mizook.com
While not a bike project, it's interesting that they're closing N. Irving (in the bottom center of the image above) to help simplify the intersection. In it's place will be a green streets element
In addition, the project will be
  • Reducing intersection size and tightening the intersection geometry
  • Shortening pedestrian crossing distances and widening crosswalk areas
  • Better aligning Washington Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard
  • Upgrading traffic signals
  • Installing new Carlyle streetlights
  • Providing wider center medians at all crossings
  • Adding curb extensions at the Liberty Tavern corner
  • Planting new street trees

The first phase of construction will last about 10 weeks. 

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader