Bicycle Planning for the National Capital Region

8/18/2019 Bicycle Planning for the National Capital Region

1/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the

National Capital Region

July 2 6

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board


2/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Plan

for the National Capital Region

CREDITS

Technical Oversight

Bicycle and Pedestri an Subcommittee

Of

the TPB Technica l Committee

Director Department of Transportation Planning

Ronald F. Kirby

Chief

Progt·am

Coordination

Gerald

K

Miller

Report

uthors

Michael J Farre

ll

Andrew Meese

Co

ntribut

ors

Andrew

Au

stin

Wendy Klancher

Jim Sebastian

Jim Yin

Credits


3/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan T BLE OF CONTENTS


CREDITS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

I. PLANNING CONTEXT

A. Overvic\IV

........................................................................................... 1 I

B.

Transportation Vision of the Transportation Planning Board ............ I l

C. TPB Actions to Encourage Walking and Bicycling ..........................

1 3

D.

TCSP Reports ..................... ...............................................................

1 3

E. Federa l and State Policies ..................................................................

1 5

F. Americans with

Di

sabil

ities

Act .................... ....................................

1 6

G.

SAFETEA LU ...................................................................................

1 7

H.

Safe Routes to School ........................................................................ I 7

I. Constrained Long Range Plan ...........................................................

1 8

J. Transportation Improvement Program............................................... 1 8

K. Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Summary Table ...................... l 10

L. Local Bicycle and Pedest

ri

an Planning Staffing Table ................... l 11

M. Priority Unfunded Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ........................ 1 12

N. Regional

Bi

cycle Plans .................................................................... I I4

0. Sources

of

the Regional Plan Projects ............................................. 1 14

P. Outlook ............................................................................................ 1 15

2.

BICYCLING AND WALKING

IN

THE WASHTNGTON REGION

A. Ovcrview ............................................................................................ 2 l

B. Jurisdictiona l Trends according to the

US

Census ............................ 2 2

C. Mode Share by Census Tract ............................................................. 2 4

D.

Bicycling

in

the Metro Core .............................................................. 2 9

E. Demographics

of

Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuters ....................

2 l

0

F. Commute Trip Distances ................................................................. 2 13

G.

Non work trips ................................................................................. 2 15

H. Walking and Bicycling to Transit .................................................... 2 16

I. Outlook ............................................................................................ 2 18

J.

Data Sources .................................................................................... 2 20

0 1


4/182

icycle and Pedestrian Plan

T BL

E OF CO

NT

E

NTS


3. PED ESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY

A.

Overview..................................................................................... .......

3

1

B.

Scope

of

the Problem .................................. ..................................... ..

3 1

C.

Distribution

of

Fatalities and Injuries

by

Ju

ri

sdiction ........................ 3 3

D.

Factors Contributing

to

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes ................... 3 5

E. Legal Status of Pedestrians and Bicyclists......................................... 3 5

F. Street Smart Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Campaign ................... 3 10

G. Evaluation Results ................................. ........ ............... ................... 3 1 I

H. Outlook ................................................ ........ ................ ...... .............. 3 1

1

4. EXISTING FACIUTIES FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRI

ANS

A.

Overview................................ ............................................................ 4 1

B. Shared Use Paths ............................................................................... 4 1

C. Side Paths .......................................................................................... 4 2

D. Bicycle Lanes.................................................................................... . 4 2

E. Dual Faci lities .................................................................................... 4 3

F. Signed Bicycle Routes .......................................................................

4 3

G.

Long distance Bicycle Routes ........................................................... 4 4

H. Exclusive Bus/Bike Lanes ..................... ............................................ 4 4

I.

1:3ridges ......... .... ..... ................ ...... ....................................... ................ 4 4

J.

Bicycles and Pub l

ic

Transit ............................................................... 4 5

K.

Pedest

rian

Access to Transit .............................................................. 4 6

L. Outlook ......... ................. ....... ................................ ........................ ..... 4 6

5. BEST PRACTICES

A. Enhance Agency Efforts

to

Incorporate Bicycle and Pedestrian

Elements in jurisdictional planning and design polices ................ 5 1

B. Develop and Adhere to Consistent Bicycle and Pedestrian Fac ility

and Construction Standards in each Jurisdiction ....................... 5 3

C. Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation within and between

Regional Activity Centers and the Urban Core .....

...................

5 4

D.

Integrate Bicycling and Walking into

the

Public Transportation

Systen1 ...................................................... . ................ 5 4

E. Provide Adequate Bicycle Support Faci lities .......................... 5 5

F. Develop Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education and

Enforcement Programs in All Juri

sd

ictions ..

..........................

5 6

G.

Each Jurisdiction should Develop a High Visibi lity Bicycle or

Pedestrian

Pr

oject

..........................................................

5 8

H TPB Shall Compile and Report on Best Practices Regarding

Wayfinding and Signage for

Bi

cyclists and Pedestrians in the

0 2


5/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan T BLE O CONTENTS


Washington Region ........................................................ 5 9

6. THE 2030

BICYCLE

AND PEDESTRJAN NETWORK

A. Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Network in 2030 ...........................

6 1

B. Cost

Estin1ates ............................................... .....................................

6 1

C. Exp

lanation

of

Project Listings ................. .................................. .. ..... 6 2

D. Maps

..... ........................ ....... .............................................................. 6 6

APPENDIX:

A. 2006 Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

B. Project Database

Data

Dictionary and Sample Database Entry Form

C. Bicycle and P

edest

rian Projects in th e CLRP

D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the TIP

E. Completed projects from the 1995 Bicycle Plan

F. Metro Core Cordon Counts

G. Table 2 10: Origin Station Sotied

by

Walk

Mode of

Access

H. Table 2 11: Origin Station Sorted by Bike

Mode

of Access

l Ta

bl

e 3 1: Bike racks and lockers

at

Metro Stations

J.

Links and Resources

K. Glossary

L. Glossary

of

Acronyms

M. Priorities

200

0 Projects

N. Bibliography

0-3


6/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

for the National

Capita

l Region

List

of

F igures, Tables,

Charts

List

of

Figures, Tables

Charts

Figures

i-1

, TPB Planning Area, Washington

DC -M

D-VA Metropol itan Statistical Area ...... .... .....i-4

1- 1, Sources of the Plan Projects .......................................................................................... 1-15

2-1, 2000 Bike Commute Mode Share .... ............................................................................. 2-5

2-2, 2000 Bike Commute Mode Share ........ .......... ............................................................... 2-6

2-3, 2000 Walk Commute Mode Share ........................................................................... .... . 2-7

2-4, 2000 Walk Commute Mode Share .................................................................. .............. 2-8

6-1, Major Bic

yc

le a

nd

Pedestrian Projects .......................................................................... 6-6

6-2, Major Bic

yc le

and Pedestrian Projec

ts in th

e Central Washington Region ......... ........ . 6-7

6-3, Major Bicycle a

nd

Pedestrian Projects included

in

the CLRP ................................. ..... 6-8

6-4, Major Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the Central Washington Region

included in the CLRP ................................... .. ............................... ........................................6-9

Tables

1-1 , Bicycle and Pedestr

ian

Provisions of the Transportation Vision .................................. l-2

1-

2, Major Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans and Studies of the Washington Region ............... 1-10

1-3 Agency Bicycl

e/

Pedestrian Planning Staff ................................. ................................

..

1-1

I

2-1, Pedestrian Commuting in the Ten Largest Metropolitan Areas ............................... .... 2- 1

2-2, Bicycle Commuting

in

the Ten Largest Metropolitan Areas ....................................... 2- 1

2-3, 2002 Metro Core

Co rd

on Counts ................................................................................. Appendix F

2-4, Bicycle Count on Radia l Transp01iation Facilities ............. .... ...................................... Appendix F

2

-5

, Walk/Bike Mode Share by NumberofVehicles ................. .......................................... 2-13

2-6, Commute Distance ......................................... .................................................. ............. 2-13

2-7, Wa

lk

and Bike Commute

Di

stance ............................................................................... 2-13

2-8, Distance

from

Home to Alternative Mode Meeting Point ........................................... . 2-14

2-9, Means ofGett

in

g from Home to Alternative Mode Meeting/Transfer Po

in

t ............... 2-14

2-l 0, Origin Station Sorted

by

Wa lk

Mode of Access ..................................................... Appendix G

2-

, Origin Station Sorted

by

Bike Mod e

of

Access ................................................... ... Appendix H

3-1 , Se lected Bicycle Ru les in the Washington Area ................................................... ... ..... 3-6

3-2, Pedestrian Traffic Law - Motor Vehicles .......................... ........................................... 3-7

3-3, Pedestrian Traffic

Law-

Pedestrians ............................. ............................................... 3-9

3-4, Fatalities 200

1-

2004 ...................................................................................................... 3-11

6- 1. Miles of Bicycle/Pedestrian Faci

liti

es in the Washington Region ............................ .... 6-1

6-2, Imputed Costs ................................................................................................................ 6-2

6-3, Mapped Pedes

tri

an a

nd

Bicycle Projects .......................................................................6-3


7/182


for the National Capital R gion

Charts

List of Figures Tables

C rts

2-1 Percentage of Workers Walk

in

g to Work ............................................................... ...... 2-3

2-2 Percentage

of

Workers Biking to Work .......................................... ..... ...... ................... 2-3

2-3 Bicycling

in

the

Metro Co

re ......................................................................................... 2-9

2-4 Walk/Bike Co

mmut

e Mode Share by Annual Household Income ...... .................. ...... . 2- 11

2-5 Walk/Bike Co

mmut

e Mode S hare by Ethnicity ..................... ..... ...... ........................ 2-11

2-6

Wa

lk/Bike Commute Mode Share by ge .............. ..... .......... .................................. 2-12

2-7

Estimated Bicycle T rips from the COG Household Travel Survey .............................. 2-16

3- 1 Average Annual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities in the Washington Reg ion

1994-2004 ....................... .... .......... ..... ................................................................................. 3-2

3-2

Pedestrian Bi

cyc

list

and

Motorized Traffic Fatalities in the Washington Region

1994-2004 ···························· ···················································· ·································· ··········· 3-2

3-3 Average Amlllal Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities 1994-2003 ................... .

...... .... .. 3-3

3-4 Average Annual Pedest rian and Bicycl ist Fata

li

ties per l 00 000 people 1994-2003 3-4

2


8/182

xecutive Summary


9/182


Executive Summary


erview

The

Bicycle

nd

Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region

identifies the capital

improvements, studies, actions, and strategies that the region proposes to catTy out by 2030 for

major bicycle and

pedestrian fac ilities.

The

National Capita l Region Transportation Planning

Board TPB), composed

of

governments and agencies from around metropolitan Washington,

has developed this plan with the support

of

its Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee. The plan

builds upon the 1998

TPB Vision

to guide the region s transportation investments into the 21st

Century. Th is is the first al l-new regional plan specifically for bicycle faci

li

ties since 1995, and

represents the first-ever regiona l pedestrian facilities plan.

In

addition to building upon the

TPB Vision

the


for

the National

Capital Region

draws on and has been shaped by a number of regional , state, and local policy

statements, plans, and studies. These include the TPB s Transportation nd Community nd

System Preservation Greenways and Circulation Systems Reports published in 2001); the TPB s

regularly updated Constrained Long Range Plan CLRP) and Transportation Improvement

Program TIP); federal and state guidance on bicycle and pedestrian faci li ties; and a wealth of

state and local bicycle and pedestrian plans from around the region.

The Bicycle

nd

Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region

is intended to be advisory to

the CLRP and TIPs, and to stand as a resource for planners and the public. In contrast to the

CLRP, the

Bicycle

nd

Pedestrian Plan

includes both funded and unfunded projects - projects

in

this plan may not yet have funding identified to support their implementation.

Planning Context

A number of federal , state, and local activities, as noted above, provide the planning context

Chapter 1 for this document. Jurisdictions and agencies around the region maintain active

bicycle and pedestrian planning and coordination programs. Within this context, the TPB

incorporates bicycle and pedestrian considerations into overall regional transpottation planning,

bike-to-work components of the Commuter Connections program, and the reg ion s Access for

A

ll

Committee co ncerning minority, low-income, and disabled communities. The TPB supports

bicycling and walking and their h

ea

lth, community, pollution reduction, and congestion

reducti

on

benefits for the region.

icycling and Walking n the National Capital Region

The state of bicycling and walking in the Washington region Chapter 2) includes success

stories, challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Data from the U.S. Census, surveys, and

E-1


10/182

Bicycle

and

Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary


other

sources provide an understanding

of

where bicycling and walking are found throughout the

region, as well as who

is

walking and bicycling. These data may point to opportunities fo r

increasing the

se

activities, and support the need to consider bicycling and walking in overall

roadway and transit planning and engineering.

Safety

Bicycle and pedestrian safety (Chapter 3) is a key challenge for the region. The plan describes

the scope of the safety problem, its geographic and demographic i stribution across the region,

and the legal rights and responsibilities

of

drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Unfortunately,

throughout the region bicycle and pedestrian safety issues are found.

The

region and member

agencies are actively pursuing a number of engineering, enforcement, and educational strategies

to reduce deaths and injuries.

Existing Facilities

The Washington reg ion benefits from a number of popular bicycle and pedestrian facilities in

place in

our

communities (Chapter 4). The region s transit agencies have also worked to provide

access and accommodation of bicycling and walking to and on their systems. A goal

of

this plan

is to complement

and

augment the existing system

of

facilities.

Best Practices

Conveni

ent

and safe bicycle

and pede

strian access is a key goa l of the TPB

s Vision

To help

achieve this, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee developed a set of recommended best

practices (Chapter 5) for the design and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as

well as for the

in

corpora tion

of

bicycl ing and walking considerations into overall roadway and

trans it design. Best practices are based upon nationa l and sta te Jaws and gu idelines.

Planned Bicycle and

Pe

de

strian

Facilities a

nd Impr

ovements

Improvements included on the plan

s

list

of

r

eg

iona l bicycle and pedestrian projects (overview

in

Chapter 6 and the full li

st

ing

in

Appendix A) were identified, submitted an reviewed by agency

staffs

ofTP

B member jurisdictions.

The

plan includes approx imately 350 bicycle

an

d

pede

strian

facility improvement projects from across the region. If evety project

in

the

plan

were

implemented, in 2030 the region will have added over 200 miles of bicyc le lanes, over 400 miles

of shared-use paths, hundreds of miles of s igned bicycle routes (signage without additional

E 2


11/182

icycle and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

o

r the National Capital R

eg

ion

construction), more than 50 pedestrian intersection improvements, and a number of

pedestrian/bicycle bridges or tunnels. Two new bicycle and pedestrian crossings

over

the

Potomac wou ld be created, at the American Legion and Woodrow Wilson Bridges, and bridges

over the Anacostia Ri

ver

wou ld be improved for pedestrians and bicyclists. n addition, major

streetscaping projects wou

ld

improve pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities

in

Ballston,

Bethesda, Clifton, H

ayma

rket, Manassas, Tysons

Co

rner and other locations.

Costs

Total estimated

cost

of

projects in the draft plan is about

530

mi

Ilion (2006 dollars).

35%

of

the

plan projects have specific agency-submitted cos t estimates, totaling about $190 million of the

530 million. About 110 million

ofthe

190 million is for projects included

in

the CLRP.

For

the remaining

65% of

draft plan listings project-speci fie cost estimates were not available. Tota l

estimated cost for projects without an agency-submitted estimate was imputed on a mileage and

project type basis

at

about $340 million of the $530 million. Cost estimates should

be

considered as order-of-magnitude and in most cases do not reflect engineering-level estimates.

On

L

ne Resources

Development

of

the Bicycle nd Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region has benefited

from an on-1ne plan project database, a resource separate from the printed document. For the

first time, Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee members were ab le to v iew, enter, a

nd

ed it their

project listings on-line. This on-line database will facilitate keeping the regional list accurate

and up-to-date, and wi ll fac ili tate integration of information fi·om this plan into the region's

Constrained Long Range Plan and Transp01iati

on

Improve ment Progra m as necessary. An on

line version of this plan also wi

ll

be maintained for pub lic access on the TPB

's

Web site at

http://\\\\ w.m\\CO .org, under transportation/planning activities/bicycle and pedestrian planning.

Outlook

Overall, the TPB s Vision calls for convenient, safe bicycle and pedestrian access, walkability in

regional ac tivity centers and the urban core, reduced reliance on the automobile, increased

walking and bicycling overall, inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities

in

new transportation

projects and improvements, and implementation of a regiona l bicycle and pedestrian plan.

The

Bicycle

nd

Pedestrian Plan

for

the National Capital Region provides a bluepr

in

t for making the

reg ion a better place for bicycling and wa lking.

E 3


12/182

icycle

and

Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

for the National apital Region


13/182

ntroduction


14/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan INTRODUCTION

for th e National Capital Region

Bicy ling Walking and the Vision

of the Transportation Planning Boar

Th e National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board has long recogni zed the benefits of

bicycling and wa lking in the region 's mu lti-moda l transportation system. The Transportation

Planning Boa rd' s

Transportation Vision

for

the

2Js

Century,

adopted

in 1998

,

emphasizes bicycles and pedestrians

in

its

goals, objectives and strategies. A

key

patt

of

the

Vi

sion

is

a strong urban core

and a

se

t of regional activity centers,

wh ich

wi

ll provide

fo

r mixed uses

in

a

walkable environment and reduced

reliance on the automobi e. The

Vision

also ca lls for the implementation of a

regional bicycle and pedestrian plan.

Recommendations

in

thi s plan will help

rea lize the Vis

ion.

i ycling and Walking in the National

Capital Region

The Washington region is nationally known

for

the qua

li

ty,

beauty, and extent of its bicycle paths. Its walkable core

nei ghborhoods attract residents an d visitors alike The region

has a stronf foundation of walking and bicycling facilities to

build

up

o

n

The Urban Core has a

Growing Network ofBicycle

Lanes

Taken together, bicycling a

nd

walking is a significant

mod

e of transpottation in the Washington

Walking nd

Bic

ycl

ing

accountfor 8.3

ofall trips in the

region. Accord

in

g to the Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments' 1999 Household Travel Survey there are roughly 1.1

million pedestrian trips

pe

r day

in

the reg ion , which is 7.8 of all trips.

There are roug

hl

y 76,000 bicycle trips per day

in

the region, which is

one-half of one percent

of

the almost

14

million daily trips for all modes

of transportation.

region

Recent years have seen progress for bicyclists and pedestria

ns

Several

maj or new trai ls have opened, and most local governments have adopted

bicycle, pedestrian, and/or trail plans. Th e Washington Metropolitan Area Transi t Authority has

1

DC

Bi

cyc le Lane Photo:

OGfr

PB / Michael Farre

ll

i 1


15/182


16/182


IN

TRO

U

TION

for e National Capital Region

Plan Development and Organization

This plan has been prepared by the National Capital Regi on Transportation Planning Board, the

federally designated Metropo litan Planning Organization MPO) for the Wa s

hin

gton region. Th e

TPB is made up o representatives o 20 local governments, the departments o transpo11ation o

Maryland, Virginia, and the District

o

Columbia, the state legislatures, and the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority WMATA). Member jurisdictions are shown in Figure i 1

on page i-4. The area

o

the TPB members plus Calvert County in Maryland and Stafford

County in Virginia comprises the Washington, DC-MD-V A Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSA).

Thi s document presents the long-range Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Washington Region

th

rough the year 2030. The plan

is

a list o regional projects identified by the TPB member

jurisdictions, accompanied by recommended best practices and a description

o

existing facilities

and regional trends for bicycling and walking. This plan includes both funded and unfunded

projects. It does not spec

ify

design guidel

in

es, but refers

in

stead to state

and

national guidel

in

es

for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

This update

o

the

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Plan for the National Capital Region seeks to

reflect the goals, objectives and strategies o

the 1998

TPB Vision

whi le bui lding on

information from previous bicycle plans.

This update also fully incorporates pedestrian

issues

for

the first ti m

e.

Pedestrian planning

is

most needed at the county , city an d

neighborhood level. There is , however, a role

for regional pedest

ri

an planning.

By

recommend ing policies and keeping track o

regional trends, we can help make the

Washing

ton

area a better place to walk.

7

7

New York Avenue Metro Station Photo: DDOT/Jim Sebastian

i 3

The New York venue

Metro Station

Incorporates a Shared-

Use Path nd Bicycle

Parking


17/182

Bicycle a

nd

Pedestrian Plan INTRODUCTION

for the Nationa l

apita

l Region

Figure

i-1

TPB

Planning

Area, Washington DC-MD-VA Metropolitan

Statistical

Area MSA)

...

D

TPR P l ~ n u i n . .I'M

10

i l ~ •

p o l i t 1 n SWistir al •O.n a

i-4


18/182

Chapter

Planning ontext


19/182

Bicycle

and

Pedestrian Plan

CH PTER

1:

for the National Capital Region PLANNING CONTEXT

Overview

This Bicycle nd Pedestrian Plan

for

the National Capital Region draws on and has been shaped

by a number

of

regional, state, and local policy statements, plans, and studies, including the

Vision of the Transpottation Planning Boa rd , the TCSP (Transportation and Community and

System Preservation) reports, federal

and

state guidance on provision of bicycle and pedestrian

faci lities, the Constrained Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Program, and state

and local

bi

cycle and pedestrian plans.

The

Vision

of

the

Tran

s

port

ation Planning Board

The National Capital Region Transpottation Planning Board

is

the Metropolitan Planning

Organization for the Washington region. It brings key decision-makers together to coordinate

planning and funding for the region s transportation system.

The TPB s official vision statement

fo

r the region, the Transportation Vision for the

Century adopted

in

1998, is meant

to

g

uid

e regional transpOJtation

inv estments into the new century. The Vision is not a plan with a map

or specific

li

sts

of

projects.

t

lays out eight broad goals, with

associated objectives and strategies that will help the region reach its

goals.

The Vision is supportive

of

pedestrians and bicyclists.

It

calls for:

Convenient, safe bicycle and pedestri

an

access

• Walkable regional activity centers and urban core

• Reduced reliance on the

au

tomob

il

e

• Increased walk and bike mode share

The Vision of he

TPB calls

for

more

Wa/king

and Biking

Including bicycle and pedestrian

faci

lities

in

new transportation projects and

improvements

Implementation of a regional bicycle and pedestrian plan

Sections

of

the Vision relating to bicycle and pedestrian goals are highlighted

in

Table 1-l. The

full text of the Vision is available at \ \ \ \ .111\\

co .o1'

/transpo11ation.

This plan is intended to help fu lfill the goals of the TPB Vision for Bicyclists and Pedestrians;

recomm endations

in

thi s plan reflect the goals of the Vision.

In

addition to the spec ific references

in

Table 1-1. many other aspects

of

the Vision address

bicyclists and pedestrians, such as: maintaining the ex isting transpottation system, reducing the

per capita vehicle miles traveled, linking land use and transpottation planning, and achieving

enhanced funding for transpotiation priorities.

1 1


20/182


CHAPTER :


Table 1-1:

Bicycle a

nd

Pedestrian Provisions

of

the Transportation Vision

Goal 1 The Washington metropolitan region s transp011ation system will provide

reasonable access at reasonable cost to evervone

in

the region.

Objective

4:

Convenient bicycle and pedestrian access.

Strategy

3:

Make the region s transportation faci

liti

es safer, more access

ibl

e and less

intimidating for pedestrians bicyclists

an

d

pe

rsons with special needs.

Goal

2.

The Washington metropolitan region will develop. implement. and

maintain

an

interconnected transpor

ta

tion svstem that enhances qua l

ity

of life and

promotes a strong and grow ing econo

my

through the entire region. inc ludi ng a hea lthy

regional core and dynam ic region activity center with a mix

of

jobs. housing. and services

in a

wa

lkable en

vironme

nt _

Objective

2: Eco

nomically strong regio

nal

activity centers with a

mi

x of jo

bs

, housing,

se

rvices, and recreation in a walkable environment.

Objecti

ve 4:

Improved internal mobility with reduced reliance on the automobile

with

in

the regiona l core and within regional activity centers.

Goal 5.

Th

e Washington metropolitan region will plan a

nd

develop a

trans

pot1ati

on system that enh ances and protects the regio

n

s natural environmental

qualit

y.

cultura l and

hi

storic resources. and communities.

Objective 3: Increased transit, ridesharing, bicycling and wa lking mode shares.

Strategy

7:

Implement a

re

gional bicycle/trail/ pedestrian plan a

nd

include

bi

cycle

and pedestrian facilities in

new trans

pm1ation

projects a

nd

improvements.

Accompanying

th

e ision

is

a shorter act

ion

agenda with elements

to

be included

in

the

year 2000 long range transportation plan

fo

r the region. Item four on the action agenda

cal ls for a regional conges

tion

management system

to achi

eve significant reduction

in

s

in

gle

oc

cupant vehicles (SOVs) entering the regional core and regi

ona

l activity centers

by:

• desig

nin

g a

nd

developing c

ir

cula

ti

on systems that maximize the use of transit

(rai

l,

monorail , bus, jitney. etc.)

and

pedestrian and bicycle facilities

1 2


21/182

Bicycle an d Pedestrian Plan CHAPTER 1:


Encouraging Bicycling an d Walking:

Bike to

Work

Day, the Bike to

Work

Guide, and

Guaran

t

ee

d Ride Home

To help rea lize the

TPB Vision

and reduce congestion, air pollution, and single occupant vehicle

traffic, the TPB has developed several programs to encourage bicycling and walking in the

Washington region. s part of its Commuter Connections program, every year on the third

Fr iday in May the TPB sponsors a regional Bike to Work Day. This event has grown into one of

the largest of its kind in the country, attracting over six thousand riders to more than twenty pit

stops or rallying points around the region. The event is meant to encourage first-time riders to

try bicycling to work.

The Commuter Connections program also supports publication of

Biking

t

Work in the

Washington Area: A Gu

id

e

for

Employers

and

A Guide

for

Employees

which provides tips for

employees and emp

lo

yers. Fo r employees, there are tips on safe cycling, laws, equipment and

clothing, and transit connections. For employers, the guide explains the benefits

of

bicycling to

the employer, the types of bicycle parking, and the ways an employer can encourage an

employee to bike to work. Commuter Connections also makes available on-line a regional map

of ex isting bicycle faci lities, park and ride lots with bicycle parking, transit, and HOY lanes.

1

The

Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee a lso pub lishes a map

of

regional bicycle fac ilities in

cooperation wit h the ADC Map Company . Maps can be ordered at lww.adcmap.com .

People sometimes drive to work because they need to be able to get home quickly in an

emergency. To meet that need and help get more people out

of

their cars, the Commuter

Connections program offers a free taxi ride home in an emergency for commuters who regularly

(twice a week) carpool, vanpool, bike, wa lk or take transit to work. Commuters

who

sign up for

the Guaranteed Ride Home program may use it up to four times per year.

Pr

iorities 2000: Metropo litan Washington Greenways and Circulation Systems

The Greenways

and Circulation

Systems Reports

identifY specific

projects that

support the TPB

Vision

supports the goal

In 1999 the TPB undertook the preparation of two reports :

Priorities

2000: Metropolitan Washington Greenways

and

Priorities 2000:

Metropolitan Washington Circulation

ystemi

.

The reports were

funded by the Federal Highway Administration under the

Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot

Program. The grant was intended to support two key components of the

TPB vision: improving circulation within the regional core and regional

activity centers, and integrating greenspace into a regional greenways

system.

The Greenways Report

supports the greenways and trails

component

of

the TPB vision, wh ile the

Circulation Systems Report

of improving circulation, especially non-motorized circulation, within the

1

Th

e Bike to Work Guide is available at www.mwcog.org/commuter/ccindex.hrml

2

Both reports can be downloaded under Information and Pub lications at www.mwcog.on.

l-3


22/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CHAPTER 1:


PLANNING CONTEXT

urban core and the regional activity centers. The two Priorities 2000 reports provided key input

to this bicycle and pedestrian plan.

The Greenways Report identified eight regional priority trail projects,

and

twelve local projects,

as well as nine major existing greenways.

Projects were selected as regional

priorities based on five criteria:

• Potential inter-j urisd ictional

connection

• Fill a critical

gap

• Provide ecological benefits

•

Links

to existing or planned

greenway

• Provide community access to the

regional greenway network

The

Greenways Report

also provides

detailed strategies for identifying,

planning, implementing, and managing

greenways projects.

3

C O Canal Towpath

Great Falls, MD

Regional priority projects, local priority projects, and selected ex1stmg greenways from the

Greenways Report

are

shovm in Appendix M. Several of these green

ways

have been completed

since this report was published, while others have been advanced significantly.

Priorities 2000: Circulation Systems

The Circulation Systems Report focused

on

local circulation systems within the regional core

and within regional activity centers. Places such as Tyson' s Corner have grown to urban

densities whi le relying almost entirely

on

the automobile for internal mobility, leading to

worsening congestion. There

is

tremendous interest in improving internal pedestrian, bicycle,

and

transit mobility in such centers.

The Circulation Systems Report identified candidate and priority projects for improving internal

circulation. Out of 5 candidate projects identified, 4 were pedestrian or bicyc le projects.

Projects were selected as regional priorities using the following criteria:

• location in a regional activity center

• readiness for implementation

• included in a local plan

3

C O Towpath Photo: COG/TPB, Michael Farrell


23/182


CHAPTER :

for the National Capital Region PL NNING CONTEXT

•

safety

•

air

quality

•

economic development

•

households served

•

employees served

•

cost

The following projects were selected as regional priorities:

1

Downtown

DC

Circulator

2. New York Avenue Metro Station Access

3. Union Station Bike Station

4. Montgomery County

CBD

Shuttle Package

5. Rockville Town Center

6. Suitland Metro

Area

Bus and Pedestrian Improvements

7. Old Town Fairfax Redevelopment

8. Rosslyn Circle Crossing

9. Tyson 's Corner Pedestrian Improvements

Of

the nine regional priority circu lation projects, seven are wholly

or

partially pedestrian

or

bicycle projects.

The Greenways and Circulation Systems Reports continue to serve as a resource for planners in

the Washington region. They also represent the most recent statement of regional bicycle and

pedestrian priorities, and a majority of the projects chosen as priorities have either been

implemented or have been advanced significantly since the TCSP reports were issued. The

TCSP selection criteria for regional priority have been incorporated into the information in the

regional bicycle and pedestrian database.

Federal and State Policies

Virginia now

requires routine

accommodation

of

pedestrians

nd

bicyclists in

transportation

projects

4

www virginiadol org

U.S. Department of Transportation guidance issued

in

2000 calls for

bicycling and walking facil

iti

es to be incorporated into all transportation

projects unless exceptional circumstances exist. In 2004, the Virginia

Department of Transportation released its policy for bicycle and

pedestrian accommodation, which commits VDOT to routinely

accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists as part of all new construction

and reconstruction projects, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

4

The

State of Maryland s Bicycle and Pede

st

rian Access Act provides that

Access to and use of transportation facilities by pedestrians and bicycle

riders shall be conside

re

in all phases of transportation planning,

1 5


24/182


CH PTER :

for the National Capital Region PL NNING CONTEXT

including highway design. construction. reconstruction. and repair. '

5

The

Maryland Department

of

Transportation is to ··work to ensure ' that transportation options for pedest

ri

ans

and

bicycle

riders ill be enhanced and not negatively impacted by a project

or

improvement.

Routine accommodation policies are sometimes known as ·'complete streets'' policies.

6

·'Complete streets are defined as streets that are designed and operated to enab le safe access for

all users, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, as well as senior citizens,

chi ldren, and

per

so ns with disabilities. Oregon, Virginia, South Carolina, and a number

of

other

reg ions and cities have adopted such policies.

Federal and State policies have

evo

lved, from not requiring (or in some cases prohibiting) the use

of transportation funds for pedestrian or bicycle facilities, towards requiring the provision of

such facilities. These new federal and state guidel ines and policies wil l likely lead to

an

increase

in

the

number of

pedestrian and bicycle facilities provided, with more facilities provided as part

of

larger transportation projects rather than as stand-alone projects.

Americans with Di

sa

bilities

Act

The

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights statute that prohibits

discrimination against people who

have

disabilities. Under the ADA, designing and constructing

facilities that are not usable by people with disabilities constitutes

discrimination. Public rights of

way,

including pedestrian facilities. are

required by federal law to be accessible to people with disabilities.

Both new and altered pedestrian facilities must be made accessible to

perso ns with i sab ilities, including those who are blind

or

visually

impaired .

The

courts have held that

if

a

st

reet is to be altered to make it

more usable by the genera l public, it must also be made more usable for

those with disabilities.

The ADA Requires

that all New

and

Altered Pedestrian

Facilities be made

Accessible to the

Handicapped

Government facilities which were

in

existence prior to the effective dates

of

the ADA and which

have not been altered are not required to be

in

full compl iance with facility standards developed

for

new

construction and alterations. However, th

ey

must achieve 'program access.' That is, the

program must, when viewed in its entirety, not deny people with disabilities access to

government programs and serv ices. For example, curb ramps may not be required

at

every

existing walkway

if

a basic level of access to the pedestrian network can be achieved by

other

means, e.g., the use of a slightly longer route. Municipalities should develop plans for the

5

Maryland Department of Transportation, enty Year Bicyc le and Pedestrian Access

la

ster Plan October, 2002.

p.

32.

6

\ \ \ w.completestn:l'h.org

1 6


25/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CHAP

TE

R :

for the Nationa l Capital Region PLANN

ING

CON

TEXT

installation

of

curb ramps and accessible signals such that pedestrian routes are, when viewed

in

their

e n t i r e t ~

accessible to people who are blind

or

visually impaired within reasonable travel

time limits.

Design standards for the disabled, such as smoother surfaces, adequate width, and limits on

cross-slope, are also beneficial for the non-disabled pedestrian. Good design for persons with

disabilities is good design for a

I.

SAFETEA

LU

Under the SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:

Legacy for Users) federal transportation bill signed in August 2005, bicycle and pedestrian

projects remain broadly eligible for nearly all funding categories, either for projects incorporated

into something larger, or for stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects. The bill authorizes

286 billion for highways and transit from 2005 through 2009, a

22

increase over the previous

federal transportation bill, TEA-21.

Transportation Enhancements, half

of

which historically have been spent on bicycle or

pedestrian projects, are funded nationally at a level of 3.25 billion over five years. The

Recreational Trails Program sets aside 110 million for non-motorized trails. SAFETEA-LU

also contains a number

of

high priority projects, sometimes known as legislative earmarks, many

of which are bicycle or pedestrian projects.

8

Pedestrian and bicycle projects are not

however,

limited to set-aside programs and high priority projects. They are broadly eligible for funding

from highway and transi t funds.

Safe Routes to Sch

oo

l

Aside from the general increase

in

funding under SAFETEA-LU, the most important new set

aside for bicyclists and pedestrians is the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program. The goals of

the program are to enable and encourage children to walk and bike to school , improve safety, and

reduce traffic and air pollution near schools. Eligible activities include both infrastructure and

non-infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects include bicycle parking, crosswalks,

sidewalks, traffic calming, on and off-street bicycle facilities, etc. on any public road or trail

in

the vicinity

of

a school. Non-infrastructure projects include public awareness and outreach to

encourage walking and bicycling to school, traffic education and enforcement

near

schools,

student sessions, training, SRTS program managers, and a State Coordinator.

Not

less than 10

or

more than 30 of SRTS funds must be s

et

aside for non-infrastructure projects.

7

Am

erican Council for the Blind, Ped

es

trian S fety Handbook: A Handbook

for

Adv

oc

ates. www.acb.org

8

See www.bikeleague.org for further information

on

the Bicycle and Pedestrian provisions

of

SAFETE

A-L

U.

7


26/182

Bicy

cl

e and Pedestrian Plan C

HAP

TER 1:

for

the


PLANNING CONTEXT

Funds will be administered by State Departments

of

Transportation, with I

00%

federal share

no l

oca

l match required. Each state is to receive funds in proporti

on

to K-8 school enrollment,

but not less than 1 million. The

budget

will grow from

54

million in 2005 to 183 million in

2009.

Cons

tr

ained Long-Range Plan

The

financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) is a comprehensive plan

of

transportation projects and strategies that the TPB rea listically anticipates can be implemented

over the next 25 years.

The

region's transportati on agencies and jurisdictions submit projects for

the CLRP, which is developed and approved by the TPB.

The CLRP

is the primary vehicle for

rea lizing the B Vision and the States' long-range plans. Federal law requires that the CLRP be

updated every four years; the most recent version was adopted in 2004. To receive federal

fu nding, a transportation project in metropolitan Washington must be included in the CLRP.

Because funds must be reasonably anticipated to be available for al l the projects in the CLRP,

the

CLRP

is realist ic plan based upon available reso urces.

The CLRP identifies a few important bicycle projects, as well as di scussi ng the actions of the

Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety, walkable

communities, and better professional development and training. Training in the requirements of

the Americans with Disabilities Act with res pect to pedestrian facilities has been a major

emphasis.

Bicycle and pedestrian projects in the 2005 CLRP are listed in Appendix C. Historically, less

than 1%

of

the capital fund ing in the

CLRP

has been specifically for stand-alone bicycle and

pedestrian projects. However, since bicycle and pedestrian projects are usually small projects,

they are often added to the plan later than the major highway and trans

it

projects. Moreover,

much pedestrian and bicycle spending is subsumed within larger highway or transit projects, and

thus is not reflected in the amount programmed for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The re fore,

the

CLRP

may under-estimate

the

amount

of

bicycle and pedestrian spendin g that wi

ll occur

over the nex t 25 yea rs. State Departments o f Transportation may a I o in crease funding levels in

the future as they impl

eme

nt pol icies to routinely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in all

n

ew

transportation proj ects.

Under SAFETEA-LU bicyclists, pedestrians, and people w ith

di

sa

bi lities are explicitly r

eq

uired to be g

iv

en an opportunity to

comment on metropo litan transp01tation plans.

Tran

sportat

ion Improvem

ent Pr

ogram

The

Transp01tat ion

Im

provement Program (TIP) provides detailed

information showing which projects in the CLRP will be completed

over the next six-year period. The TlP is updated every yea r. Like

1·8

he Transportation

Improvement

Program includes

122 millionfor

pedestrian nd

bicycle projects


27/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CH PTER :

fo r

th

e National Capital Region

PL NNING

CONTEXT

the CLRP, the TIP is subject to federa l review. Many projects in the TTP are staged, so a single

CLRP project could end being split into multiple TIP projects.

Bicycle and pedestrian projects that use federa l funds are listed in the T IP. Fo r example, the

Fiscal Year 2006-201 1 TlP includes 1

22

million

fo

r bicycle and pedestrian projects. f that,

69 million is programmed for FY 2006, which is 2.4

of

the total capita l fu nds fo r all

transportation projects programm ed fo r FY 2006. As with the

CL

RP , fu nds spe

nt

on bicycle and

pedestrian accomm odations as patt

of

a larger

hi

ghway or transi t project are

of

ten sub sum ed in

budget

of

the larger project.

Loca l Bicyc le and Pedestria n lanning

Nearly every jurisdiction in the region has completed a bicycle or pedestrian plan, and most have

at least part time bicycle or pedestrian planner. Table 1

2

shows local and state plans and studies

and the year published. Jurisdictio

ns

and agencies drew projects

fr

om these individual plans and

submitted them for incorporation into the Regional

Bic

ycle and Pedestrian Plan. Local plans

may include unfunded projects.

1 9


28/182

Bicycle and Pedes

trian

Plan CH PTER I :

fo r the National Capital Region PLANNING CONTEXT

Ta

ble 1-2:

Major Bicycle

and

Pedestr ian Plans and Studies

Of the Washington Region

Jurisdiction/ Plan/Study Year

Agency

Arlington Pedestrian Transportation 1997

County

Plan ,

1

994

Bicycle Tran sp01ta tion Plan

City of Bicycle Transportation and 19

98

Alexandria Multi-Use T

rail

Plan

Di

strict

of

District

of

Columbia Bicycle 2005

Columbia Master Plan

Fairfax Countywide Trails Plan

2002

County

Frederick County Frederick C

ou

nty Bikeways

1999

and

Trails

Plan

City of Bikeways and Pedestrian Plan

1999

Gaithersburg

Lo

ud

o

un

Co

un

ty Loudoun Co unty Bicycle and

2003

Pedest

ri

an Master

Pl

an

Maryland Twenty Year Bicycle and

2

00

2

Depa1tment of Pedestrian Access Master Pl an

Transportation

MNC

PPC -

Transportation Prior

ity Li

st

1

999

Prince George s County (Joint Signature Letter)

Montgomery

Coun

tyw

ide Bikeways 20

05

County Functio

nal

Ma ster Plan

National Capital Comprehensi ve

Pl

an

fo

r the

2004

Planning National Capital

Commission

National Cap

it

al Region Pri orities

2

000: Metropolitan

200

1,

Tran sport

at

ion Planning Washington Greenways

1995

B

oa

rd Cir

cu

lation Systems,

Bicycle Plan for the Na tional

Cap ital Region

National Park

Paved R

ec

reation Tra

il

s Plan 1

990

Se

rvice

1 10


29/182

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CHAPTER :

for the National

Capita

l Region PLANNING

CONTEXT

J urisdiction/ Plan/St

ud

y Year

Agency

Prince William Thoroughfares Plan part of 1998, 1993

County

Comprehensive Plan),

Greenways and Trails Plan

City of

Bicycle Master Plan 1998

Rockville

Virginia Department of

Northern Virginia Regional

2003

Transportation , Bikeway and Trail

Ne

tw

or

k

Northern Virginia Study

Office

Table 1-3 shows the approximate number of

fu

ll-time planners each agency has working on

bicycle, pedestrian, and trails planning.

Jurisdiction/

Agency

Arl in gton

County

City of

Gaithersburg

City of

Alexandria

City of Co ll

ege

Park

City of

Rockville

District of

Columbia

Fairfax

County

Table 1-3:

Agency Bicycle/Pedestrian Pl

anning Staff

Full-Time Equivalents

(FTE's

)

Bicycle Planner Pedestrian Planner Tra ils Planner

FTE's FTE's FTE's

1

I

1

0.5

0.5 0.5

0.5

0.5 0.5

2 1

2

2

1 11


30/182

Bicycle

and

Pedestrian Plan

CHAPTER

1:

for

the


PLANNING CONTEXT

Jurisdiction/

Bicycle Planner Pedestrian

Planner

Trails Pl

anner

Agency

FTE s

FTE s FTE s

Frederick County 0 5

Loudoun County

0 5

Maryland 1

2

1

Department

of

Transportation

MNCPPC-

0 33

0 33 I

Montgomery County

MNCPPC-

I

Prince George s

County

Montgomery

County

National Capital 0 5

0 5

Region

Transpottation

Plann in g Board

National Park

l

Service

Prince William

0 5

County

Virginia Depatiment

1 5 1 5

of

Transportation,

Northern Virginia

Office

\VMATA 0 5

0 5

Priority Unfunded Regiona l Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee periodically selects a short list

of

priority unfunded

bicycle and pedestrian projects. These projects are selected from the TCSP reports, the regional

1 12


31/182

Bicycle and Pedes tr ian Plan CHAPT R 1:

for the Na tional Capital Region PLANNING CONTE

XT

bicycle plan, and

from

state a

nd

local plans.

Th

e subcommittee has compiled

an

d forwarded lists

to TPB regularly s

in

ce 1995, to

be

included

in th

e so

li

citation document for the TIP/CL

RP.

In

essence, the TPB urges the jurisdictions to consider funding these projects, which the Bicycle

and Pedest

ri

an Subcommittee has judged to

be

reg ionally significant, within six years.

The selec

ti

on criteria for inclusion

in

this short

li

st were drawn

fi·

om those used in the TCSP

Greenways and Circulation Systems Reports

The following criter

ia

were use

d:

• Bi

cy

cle Network Connectivity: priority

was

given to projects that enhanced connectivity of

faci I

ti

es on the

re

gional bicycle faci lities network.

•

Pe

destrian Sa

fe

ty: priority was given to projects that promoted pedestrian safety, especially

in areas with documented pedestrian safety problems and no pending road project that could

address

th

e

m.

• Access to

Tr

ans

it

: priority was given to projects that enhanced access

to

Metrorail stations

and other maj or transit stops or facilities.

• Time Frame: all projects should be able to be completed by 20 I l , the end

of

the

TI

P time

frame.

• Local S

upp

o

rt

: the project

is

a priority for the jurisdiction or

jur

isdic

ti

ons

in

which it is

located.

• Still seeking funding: the project does not yet have fu ll

co

nstruction funding committed to

it.

• Reasonable Cost: the total cost of

th

e list shou ld be a reasonable fraction of the total

spending in the region on highways and bridges.

While considerable weight

is

given

to

the preference

of th

e representative

of

the jurisdiction,

subcommittee members are urged to think

in

terms

of

the regio

nal

selection criteria when

no

min

a

tin

g projects.

Projects are dropped

from

the list when they receive fundin

g

or if the subcommittee and

no

min

at ing jurisdict

ion

decide that priorities have changed. Most projects on past lists have

been funded. Seven projects totaling 11,508,000 were funded

from

the 2000 list, and fiv e

projects from

th

e 2002

li

st were fully or partia

lly

funded. Projects funded since 1995 include:

>

The Metropolitan Branch Trail in Washington, D

.C.

>

Pedestri

an

a

nd

Bicycle Safety Improvements on Route I in

Fa

irfax County

>

Th

e Dumf

ri

es Road (Route 234)

Bi

ke Path

in

Prince W

ill

iam

County

>

The Rosslyn Circle Crossing

in

Arl ington County

;.... The Eisenhower Trail

in

Alexandria

;>

The Matthew Henson Trail in Montgomery County

;.... The Henson Creek Trail

in

Prince George's County

;> The Millennium Trail

in

the Rockv ille

1-13


32/182

Bicycle

and

Pedestrian Plan

CHAPTER 1:

for

the National Capital Region

PLANNING CONTEXT

Regional Bicycle Plans

The Washington region completed

its

first major bicycle study, the

Washington Regional

Bikeways Study

in

1977. This study, created under the supervision

of

the Regional Bikeways

Technical Subcommittee

of

the Transportation Planning Board Technical Committee, provided

an

overview

of

bicycling characteristics a

nd

the potential market for bicycle commuting.

In

1988

the Bicycle Technical Subcommittee began work on a bicycle element for incorporation

into the region's

transp01tation plan. The plan identified the extent to which bicycle facilities

and planning processes already existed in th region high lighted areas of concern

fo

r the future,

and drafted a

se

t

of

policy principles to

be

applied by the region's jurisdictions in updating their

own transportation plans, as well as a list of recommended bicycle projects. The

Bicycle

Element

was adopted

by

the Transportation Planni

ng

Board as part

of

the reg

ion

s

Constrained

Long-Range

Pl

an

in

November

199

1.

In

I995, the Transportation Planning Board adopted an update

to

the

1991

Bicycle Element

the

Bicycle Plan

fo

r the National Capital Region, as an amendment to the Constrained Long-Range

Plan. The revised pl

an

emphasized bicycling

for

transportation and rec

om

mended project lists

and

po

l

icy

principles produced by the Bicycle Technical Subcommittee.

In February 200I, the TPB completed the

Priorities 2000: Greenways

and

Circulation Systems

reports, which identified greenway and pedestrian circulation systems

pri

or

iti

es.

Except for the

Priorities 2000

reports, predecessors to this plan we re bicycle plans. This

upd ate to the previous plans

fu

lly incorporates pedestrian elements for the first time.

So

urc

es

of

tbe Regional P lan Projects

State, local, and agency bicycle and pedestrian plans are the source

of

the projects

in

this plan.

All bicycle and pedestrian projects that are pr

og

ramm

ed in

the TIP are also

in

the CLRP and

in

this plan. The plan, however, includes many projects that are not

in

the TIP or the CLRP. The

selecti

on

criteria from the Transportation Planning B

oa rd

s Priorities 2000: G;rcu/ations

Systems

and

Greenways

reports helped determine the data included for each project

in

the

bicycle and pedestrian plan project list. Figure 1-1

ill

ustrates the relationships between the

various project lists.

1 14


33/182


CHAPTER 1:

r the National Capital Region

PLANNING CONTEXT

Figure 1 1

Regional Prior ity Bicycle and Pedestrian

riorities

Unfunded Bicycle

l

Projects in State Local

and Pedestrian

'


34/182

Chapter

icycling and Walking in the Washington Region


35/182



CHAPTER : BICYCLING

ND

WALKING IN

THE

WASHINGTON

REGION

Overview

Re

s

id

ents of the Washington region wa

lk

and bicycle at about the same rate as the nation as

a whole. Tables 2-l and 2-2 show the share

of

walking and bicycling trips to work for the ten

largest metropolitan areas.

Nationally}

10

of

all

urban area

trips are made

onfootor y

bike

Walking and bicycling are decl ining

as modes of ransportation

both

in the

Washington region and nationally.

Nationa

ll

y

0.38%

of

American

workers bicycled to work in 2000,

and 2.93% walked. n 1990 0.4%

bicycled to work, and 3.9 walked.

The number of people driving alone

rose

from 73.2% in 1990 to 75.7% in

2000,

while use of public transpottation fell

by

0.5%. Driving has been grow

in

g,

and

walking and

public transportation declining, for many decades.

In

1960, 9.9% of

wo

rkers walked

to

work, but

on

ly 2.93%

did so

in 2000.

2

The walk and bike modes are more conunon,

though, than the census commute mode numbers

would lead one to believe. Work trips account for

only 20% of all trips; walking and biking are more

common for other purposes. National

ly

9.5% of

all urban area trips were made on foot,

and 0.9%

by bicycle in

2001. In

the Mid-Atlantic region,

15.8%

of all trips are made

on

foot, and

0.8% by

bicycle.

3

Regionally, bicycling and walki

ng

are

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Table 2

1

Walk

Pedestrian Commuting in

to

the Ten Largest

Metropolitan Areas

Work

New York 5.55

Boston 4.12

Philadelph ia

3.88

San Francisco 3.25

Chicago 3.13

Washington

3.10

Los Angeles

2.56

Detroit

1.83

Houston

1.62

Dallas-Fort Worth

1.48

United States

2.93

Table 2-2: %

Bicycle Commuting in the Bike to

Ten Largest Metropolitan

Work

Areas

San Francisco 1.12

Los Angeles

0.63

Boston

0.38

Philadelphia

0.33

Chicago

0.31

Houston

0.30

New York

0.30

Washington

0.30

Detroit

0.18

Dallas--Fort Worth

0.14

United States 0.38

concentrated in the core neighborhoods

of

the Washington region, espec ially areas near

downtown D.C. and certain Metro stations, as well as college campuses and military bases.

Figures on walking remain stab le

in

t

ho

se

neighborhoods,

whi

le bicyc

ling

numbers are

growin

g.

I 2000 US Census

2 1960 Census

of

Population, Characteristics

of

Popu lation, United States Summary

3 Pucher, John, Socioeconomics

of

Urban Travel: Evidence from the 200 I NI-ITS .

Transportation Quarterly,

Vo l. 57, No.3, Summer 2003 (49-77). Page 54.

2

1


36/182



C

HAPTER

2: BICYCLING AND

WALKING IN

TH

WASHINGTON R

EGION

Ethnicity,

geog

raphy, age, and

car owner

ship affect

the

decision to walk

or

bicycle to work.

People living

in

the District

of

Columbia are fa r more likely to wa lk

or

bicycle to work than

those living

in

Maryland or Virginia. People under the age

of

35 or

over

the age

of

65 are

more

likely to

wa

lk or bicycle to work. People living in households without cars

are

more

likely to walk

or

bicycle than those that have one, and those living in households with on ly

one car are more likely to walk or bicycle than those owning two. Middle-income groups are

sl ightly less likely to wa lk

or

bicycle than either low-income

or

the high-income groups.

Hispanics are most likely to wa lk or bike to wo rk.

Distance is a major barrier to commuter eye ng, along with absence

of

safe routes, and lack

of

end-of-trip facilities such as showers and lockers.

4

However, most commute trips that are

short enough to

be

bikable or

wa

lkable are still taken by car. The average trip distance to

transit or carpool is very short.

Transit and walking are interdependent, with 80 of bus and

60

ofMetrorail access trips

on foot. Mode of access varies tremendous ly by Metro station. Bicycling to transit is less

common

and varies greatly by Metro station, with the lowest rates of bicyc

le

access found

east

ofthc

Anacostia river.

Walking and bicycling are most common in activity centers with a mix of obs, housing,

services, and recreation in a walkable environment.

Juri

sdictional

Tre

nds according to the US Census

The nat iona l trend towards less walk ing and bicycling also ho ld s for the Washington

Metropolitan Statistical Area. n 1990, 6,633 people (0.3 ) biked to work on an average

day

in the Washingt

on area

and 85,292 (3.9 ) walked. In 2000, 7,532 people (0.3 ) biked

to work and 72 ,700 (3. 1

)

walked.

It

should be noted that the census numbers tend to

undercount pedestrian trips, since a walk trip to transit is counted as a trans it trip, not as a

wa lk trip. Charts 2- 1 and 2-2 bel

ow

show the changes in walking and biking to work by

ju

risdictio

n.

4 Metropolitan

Wa

s

hin

gton

Co

uncil

of

Government

s 200 / Bike to Work ay Surv y- Summa1y of Results

June,

2005. Page 6.

2-2


37/182

Bic

yc

le and Pedestrian Plan

for the N ational Capital Region

CH PTER 2 : BICYCLING ND

W LKING IN THE

WASHING

TO

N REGION

Cha

rt

2 1: Percentage of Workers Walking to Work

Staftord

I

Ptince WIII•tm

' - ------ l

Lo

ud

oun

: _ _ j

Falrtax

-----

AJexandlia

i

Arl

ingto

n

-

Plinc George·•

Montgomery

Fredetid

Charlet

CaNert

~

O•a1ctol Columbo

200

4.

00

1000

1200 1


38/182



Mode Share by Census

rac

t

CHAPTER : BICYC

LI

NG

ND

W LKING

IN T

HE

W

SHINGTON

RE

GION

Figure

1

shows the percentage

of

home-based

wo

rk tr

ips by

bicycle for each census tract

within the TPB me

mb

er urisdictions. Figure 2 3 shows the percentage

of

home-based

wo rk

trips by foot.

Fi

gures 2-2 and 2-4 show bicycle

an

d walk work trips respectively for the area

served

by

Metro

rai l.

The maps show that bicycling and walking are concentrated in the

neighborhoods surrounding dow ntown D.C., Capitol H

il

l, and North Arlington. Th e

neighbo

rh

oods closest to downtown show the highest walk mode shares, while those a little

fut1her

out have the highest bike mode shares. Cens

us

tracts abutting major facili ties such as

t

he

W OD, the C O, a

nd

the

Mt.

Vernon Trails t

en

d to show higher levels

of

bicycling.

College campuses and military bases such as University

of

Maryland, F

t.

Meye

rs

, Bo

llin

g

Air Force Base,

th

e National Institute

of

Health, Wa lter Reed, Howard, Georgetown and

Gallaudet all have hi gh walk or bike mode share.

2 4


39/182

Bicycle and Pedes

tr i

an Plan

fo

r the National Capital Region

CHAPTER

2: BICYCLING AND

WAL

KING N

THE

WASHINGTON REG

IO

N

Figure 2 1 :

2 Bike Commute

Mode Share

Legend

•

Me

tr

o Stations

I

o - o.12

0 12 -0.43

44 - 1.22

• 1.23 - 2.76

a t e r

2 5

y

ensus Tract

0 25 5

es

1

N

A

15 2


40/182


for

the

National

Cap

ital Region

CH PTER 2: BICYCLING AND

WALKING IN THE

WASHINGTON REGION

Figure 2 2:

2000 Bike Commute Mode Share

y

Census ract

N

A

Mle s

1 2 • 6

8

2 6


41/182

Bicycle

and

Pedestrian Plan

for the National

Capital

Region

CHAPTER

2: BICYCLING AND

WALKING N THE

WASIDNGTON REGION

Figure 2 3:

2000 Walk Commute Mode Share

Loudolw

C :>

Legend

0 0

0 5.8°o - 16.4°o

D 16.5°o -

33

.60 o

• 33. 7°o - 2 ~ o

{

• :5 y

Census Tract

<

N

A

ti les

0 2. S 0 IS :?0

2 7


42/182



CH PTER 2: BICYCLING AND

WALKING IN THE

WASHINGTON

REGION

Figure 2-4:

Legend

2000 Walk Commute Mode Share

• Metro Statio \

N

y

Census Tract

A

Mil s

0 I 2 4 6 8

2 8


43/182


CHAPTER

2: BICYCLING AND

WALKING IN

THE

WASHINGTON REGION


Bicycling in theMetro Core

COG/TPB periodically takes a count of vehicular traffic including bicycle traffic but excluding

pedestrian traffic entering downtown D.C. and Arlington as well as traffic crossing the beltway.

Bicycling is

Growing

Rapidly

in

Downtown

D C

and North

rlington

Cordon counts are not done

in

other parts ofthe region. COG/TPB

s

cordon

counts confirm the census data indicating a concentration of bicycling in the

neighborhoods close to downtown D.C. and Arlington.

The counts show that bicycle traffic into the downtown Metro core is

growing rapidly with bicycle traffic into the D.C. section ofthe Metro core

more than doubling from 1986 to 2002. The number of bicyclists entering

the Metro core within the D.istrict ofColumbia has grown steadi

ly

from 474

in 1986 to 1 379

in

2002. The number of cyc

li

sts crossing the Potomac

bridges grew from 3 17

in

1986 to 525 in 2002. Bicycle traffic into the

Arlington section of the Metro core increased from 409 to 645 bicyclists

between 1

999

and 2002 wh

il

e Potomac br

id

ge traffic declined slightly over the same period

indicating that more people are bicycling to destinations probab

ly

employment within Arlington

in

the morning. Chart 2-3 shows the number of bicycles entering the D.C. section of the Metro core

from 1986 to 2002.

Chart 2 3:

Bicycles Entering D.C. Section o the Metro Core

2000

1800

16

14

12

1

8

600

400

200

0

1986 1987 1988 199 1993

1996

1

999

2 2

Bicycle traffic is also counted on the beltway cordon including traffic on shared-use paths but the

a.m. volumes recorded are a fraction of the numbers entering the Metro core. Table 2-4

in

Appendix F shows the bicycle volumes recorded cross ing the beltway in 1995 1998 and 2001.

2-9


44/182



CHAPTER

:

BICYCLING AND

WALKING IN TH

WASHINGTON REGION

Demographic Characteristics

of

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Et

hnicity, geography, income, age, and car ownership affect the decision to walk or bicycle to work.

The best recent source

of

his demographic information on pedestrian and bicycle commuters in the

Washington region is the 2004 Commuter Connections State o he Commute Survey However, the

State

o

he Commute Survey and the US Census both measure work trips only, and the conclusions

in terms

of

both the prevalence and distribution of walking and bicycling can be quite di fferent fo r

all trips than for work trips. Nationally, the 2001 National Household Personal Transportation

Survey is the best source

of

demographic data on pedestrians and bicyclists for all types

of

trips.

All data in the following tables comes from the 2004 State o he Commute Survey unless otherwise

noted. Walking and bicycling were not

ca

lculated separately in the

State

o

he Commute Survey

for

the subcategories

of et

hnicity, income, age, and state

of

residence due to sample size issues. All

mode

sha

res are for primary commute mode, 3+ days per week. Walk/bike mode share varies by

household income, state

of

residence, number

of

vehicles in the household, ethnicity, and age. Both

the 2001 and the 2004 State o the Commute Surveys show l

ower

mode share for walking and

bicycling than does the 2000 Census, a discrepancy probably explained by differing methodologies.

A Household Income

Chart 2-4 shows walking and bicycling commute mode share by income. Walking and

bicycling to work are somewhat more prevalent among the low-income (less than 30,000

household

in

come per year) than among the very high-income (more than 140,000 per

year). Bicycling and walk

in

g are slightly more common at the top and the bottom of the

income distribution than in the middle. This is roughly consistent with the national data for

all tr

ip

s.

hart

2 4: WalklBike

ommute

Mode Share

by

Annual Household Income

S140,

000

+

I I

120,000 39,999

I

I

I

1

00,000 - 119,999

I

I

80,000 - 99,999

I

60,000-79,999

r

30,000-59,9

99

I I I I

L

es

s than 30,000

0.

00

% 0.50%

1.00o/o

1.50% 2.00%

2.50%

3.00% 3.50%

2

-10


45/182



B Ethnicity

CHAPTER 2: BICYCLING AN

WALKING IN THE

WASHINGTON REGION

Walk/b ike commute mode share differs more by ethnicity than by income. Hispanics have

the highest walk/b ike mode share at 3.8 , African-Americans the lowest at 1.5 .

Chart 2 5: lk/Bike Commute Mode Share y Ethnicity

I I

W1ite

J

I

I

I

t is panic

I

I

I

I

ian

I

I I

A frican Arrerican

I

I I

0.00 0.50 1.00

1.5C

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Nat

i

ona

l data fo r a

ll

trips, however, show

Af

rican-Americans and Hispanics both

wa

lking

for about 12 of a ll trips, though Afr ican-Americans bicycle less. Whites walk less than

any other ethn ic group, but take 0.9 of th

eir

tri ps by bike, the same

as

Hispanics.

5

C. Age

Documents

Bicycle Planning for the National Capital Region