Friday, October 11, 2013

Bicycle Networks in the Proposed WeMoveDC Plan

As the WeMoveDC process begins its transition from the information gathering to the planning stage, the ideas that they've gathered from thousands of District residents are now coming together - on maps.

In anticipation of WeMoveDC's third round of  Workshops – Ideas to moveDC - beginning October 21, BAC has obtained a draft version of the WeMoveDC maps that list ideas and approached for the District's bicycle facilities (displayed below). There are a lot of moving parts in this process, but thanks to the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), we now have maps that break them into component as well as composite maps.

BAC would like #BikeDC to look at these maps and either tell us what you think or tell WeMoveDC at its upcoming meetings. We'd also like you to note if anything should be included, for example, with all these new routes, what about safe, secure bicycle parking?

WeMoveDC has three approaches or alternatives loosely based on themes of 1) Stay the Course, 2) Get Downtown and 3) Connect the Neighborhoods. In addition, the maps displays three types of bike facilities: bike lanes, protected lanes, and off-road multi-use trails. This creates 12 maps variations (including 'summary' maps) to consider.

Please review at the maps below and discuss them with your friends, neighbors, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners or members of Council - regardless of if they ride bicycles or not. We want to make sure that the you come with a lot of questions and suggestions based on the needs of the bicycling public and the people bicyclists are connected to each day. 

BAC, together with the public, hopes to identify the significant differences between the three approaches and communicate concerns, suggestions or support the DDOT. Once major differences are identified, we need to share/document our opinions. Ideally, we'll be able offer DDOT a fourth approach - 4) the best ideas!

If you have suggestions or are unable to attend the WeMoveDC workshops, please feel free to leave your thought below or on Twitter @dcbac.





11 comments:

  1. These maps are very difficult to read and compare, even with a full size screen. Is there a way to pick a location within the city and then cycle through the options and overlays?

    For example, NE and NW DC are currently cut off from each other by bike. The only viable connections are K Street and then Michigan Avenue with nothing in between. It takes a lot of panning and zooming to find out what the different plans envision for this particular concern I have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you live in NoMa, then you should consider R Street NE/NW and Q Street NW. They are pretty good E-W options. Could they be improved? Sure, but plenty of people commute on R each morning. R even has a contraflow lane on the portion that connects to the Met Branch.

      Delete
  2. Would be nice if the maps and the pdf were at a resolution where you could actually read them - this is really sloppy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The maps are a draft version of what will be seen at the WeMoveDC meetings beginning October 21, so the resolution may not be as clear. The maps are posted here to give readers a sense of what's been considered as part of the WeMoveDC process. We'll check to see if there was an issue regarding how the PDF was uploaded to Scribd and if its process reduced resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't read them on the screen either. If you download them and zoom in (Ctrl+ in pdfs) its much easier to see.

    Anyway all improvements are welcome but I mostly bike to make trips that transit doesnt serve so the second get to the center plan is least useful. I think the third one focused on connecting neighborhoods fills in a lot of gaps that transit service leaves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about expanding the bike lanes on Florida NE (from the second scenario) through to Bloomingdale/Shaw? That will significantly improve connections between U Street NW and H Street NE, giving another option besides the 90/92 (which can have reliability problems). The proposed M Street cycletrack won't have the same effect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It looks like Rhode Island Ave is going to get a bike lane or cycle track in most of the plans. That would be great! It would enhance the corridor and make it easier to get to the Woodridge Library and the new Capitol Bikeshare station. The parts of NE DC that aren't H Street or Capitol Hill could use more bicycle infrastructure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: Bike parking. Why is so little attention paid to how bike racks are installed, especially the orientation vis a vis the sidewalk? The orientation of 90% of bike racks in downtown is flat out idiotic. The purpose of the "n" rack is that 2 bikes can park PERPENDICULAR to the rack--one on either side, and a 3rd or 4th could even go over the top. Most racks I see in the city center are orientated in such a way where you must park parallel with the rack and riders have unwittingly had to comply.
    If racks were installed properly and riders parked at them properly we wouldn't have to worry about people smacking their bikes into each other, and getting in and out would be much easier.
    When car parking is planned, I'm sure a lot goes into it (e.g., spacing, orientation of line angles, and ease of use). It's high time we take this approach with bike parking as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just speaking for my personal needs, Option 2 is vastly superior, and improves safety and accessibility of much of the city from my home. This includes improving routes for my daily commute and my regular grocery shopping, and would help me reduce my car use to almost zero.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now this is in actual fact cooperative. It’s very openhanded of you to share this with us. best mountain bikes

    ReplyDelete
  10. The raster image behind the added elements does not have enough resolution to display legibly when the vector elements are scaled up to a legible text size. The PDF needs to be re-baked with a higher-resolution raster base to work.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment.