A cluster of snowed-in bikes at American University. Photo by Amberley Johanna

Last year, we reported on breakthroughs in D.C.’s bicycling culture, such as the opening of Bikestation D.C. and proposals for bike lanes on M Street. Recently, the bikesharing buzz has been increasingly bolstered by the city’s student population.

American University’s Student Government recently enacted the first phase of a free bike-lending program on campus. Though it currently offers only six bicycles, the program builds on a larger student movement to end the University’s carbon emissions by 2020 and contributes to the University’s participation in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. The program’s director Carol Foster said the fleet, made up of automatic gear bikes, will add two manual gear bikes this spring for greater options.

According to Foster, bike-sharing is conducive to the needs of college students and appeals to a wide range of individuals regardless of biking experience:

This program initially appealed to those accustomed to frequent urban biking, but the interest base has broadened.  We have students who ride the bikes to work, to the grocery store and for leisure.  Students are finding that riding a bike gives them more freedom to travel about the capital and by doing so they are also helping the environment.

The George Washington University also expanded its bike-sharing offerings in the past couple years with two options: a Smartbike station at the Foggy Bottom-GWU metro station and a university-owned rental station on their Mount Vernon campus. The launching of these programs coincided with the late-2008 opening of GWU’s Office of Sustainability, a department coordinating the University’s environmental initiatives.

Georgetown University and Howard University students also have easy access to Smartbike stations at Dupont Circle and the Shaw-Howard metro station respectively (see map of Smartbike locations here).

Nearby University of Maryland-College Park has WeBike, a bike-sharing program that started as a student project in 2007 and won the Best Sustainable Project award at the University’s 2009 Maryland Day. Students can currently access the bikes by paying a semester-long subscription fee. Another plus: the stations are solar-powered.

The rapid emergence of these programs in the past couple years can be seen as proof that bike renting is finding popularity, not only for its trendy “green” or recreational appeal but also for its sheer usefulness. The concept has flourished on college campuses because it coincides with the transportation needs of students (low-cost and accessible,)  just as Smartbike DC has found footing with D.C. commuters seeking alternatives to heavy traffic and high gas prices.

But is this usefulness a product of the economic recession and will it only last as long? It’s difficult to say whether the mainstream public will adopt bike renting as a permanent viable alternative to driving. It is evident, however, that the concept has found its niche among urban residents who need quick and easy transportation around the city.

Another issue is whether the bikes are available to people who need it most. As blogger David Alpert pointed out earlier this year, bike stations need to be available in a wide range of areas in order for the concept to be effective. A Smartbike station at Dupont Circle is helpful but not too accessible to Georgetown students who need to take a 15-minute shuttle to reach that location. It’s also worth noting that 5 to 10 bikes per station may not be suitable for an entire campus or neighborhood. Alpert suggests putting stations in areas that have fewer Metro stops. Also, he recommends setting up stations and special rental plans in locations heavily frequented by tourists.

Finally, lack of funding is often a deal-breaker. Recovery money in 2009 certainly paved the way for a lot of sustainable projects such as bike lanes and bike rental programs (See related article on TheCityFix here). But as TheCityFix Blogger David Daddio wrote recently, packages such as the Department of Transportation’s TIGER (Transportation Investment Generation Economic Recovery) will  not cover all the funding for local projects such as the K Street Transitway or the proposed 160 station D.C. bike-sharing program.  Millions of dollars in TIGER funds have been requested for the bike-sharing projects noted above, including for the University of Maryland’s proposed expansion. However, of the total $57 billion in TIGER funds requested, $32 billion were requested for highway infrastructure, $11 billion for transit systems, and $5.6 billion for infrastructure grants. Thus, competition for these funds is fierce and priorities often gravitate towards infrastructure maintenance.

Bike-sharing is growing in small steps. As AU’s Foster explained, expanding the program is costly even with high demand. However, the concept is a strong one. D.C. is of course not the only city in the U.S. or around the world with a bike-sharing system. But the District is catching up and reflecting the importance of this system’s many environmental, health, and economic benefits. And good ideas do spread: AU is currently helping Tulane University develop its own bike-sharing model.

Proposed improvements overlaid on existing conditions at the U Street/Florida Ave. intersection. Image via SeeClickFix.

It all started four months ago, when TheCityFix blogger David Daddio reported an issue on SeeClickFix about a dangerous intersection at U Street and Florida Ave., east of 18th Street NW. Over just several days, the report got responses from concerned citizens, and finally, the Office of Councilmember Jim Graham.

Just last month, DDOT’s Aaron Rhones responded with a list of “safety improvements.” It goes to show how a more responsive government really is at your fingertips (via your computer, your Blackberry, your iPhone, and, as announced today, your Android phone!) The problem is now on the radar of city officials who actually have the power to fix it.

Here’s how DDOT made (and will continue to make) improvements to the intersection:

· Replaced “Yield To Pedestrians While Turning” sign, placed at the southeast corner of U Street and Florida Avenue, with “Turning Vehicle Stop For Pedestrians in Crosswalk.”

· Installed “No Left Turn” regulatory sign on the electrical/signal pole (#26113) at the southeast corner of U Street and Florida Avenue for south and southwest bound directions of the travel, facing southbound traffic.

· Install “No Left Turn” regulatory sign on the electrical/signal pole (#11157) at the northwest corner of U Street and Florida Avenue for south and southwest bound directions of the travel, facing southwest bound traffic.

· The signal timing plan for intersection of Florida Avenue and U Street was adjusted (retimed) to eliminate conflict between pedestrians crossing U Street and traffic making a right turn from Florida Avenue to U Street in eastbound direction.

· Will repaint double yellow line on Florida Avenue between U Street and Seaton Street, where it is partially faded.

· Will refurbish yellow gore pavement marking along U Street at the intersection of Florida Avenue and U Street.

· Planning to refurbish both, the north and south side ladder type crosswalks and stop bar pavement markings on U Street at the intersection of U Street and 18th Street, to provide better visibility to motorists and pedestrians. We will also provide 5 (ft.) distance between stop bar pavement marking and back edge line of crosswalk.

· The street light’s mast arm of Electrical/signal pole #11157 located at the northwest corner of U Street and Florida Avenue is missing. DDOT will need to install the missing part and provide a night time light inspection of the site.(This work will be performed during the 18th Street reconstruction project).

· Refurbished traffic guide line pavement markings throughout the entire intersection of Florida Avenue and U Street.

· Installed “Steel Plates Ahead” work zone warning signs in appropriate place on U Street, for eastbound traffic to warn the motorists of the existing two steel plates, located at the intersection of U Street and Florida Avenue.

Additional safety improvements will be made during the reconstruction of the Florida/18th Street intersection scheduled for this year (2010).

It’s important to note that there’s still some work that needs to be done. Last week, Daddio followed up on Rhones’ response, and found that pavement marking is still lacking, and cars are still zipping through the crosswalk at dangerous speeds, despite the signage telling them to watch out for pedestrians. The challenge now is to find an interim solution between now and the proposed streetscape plans.

See our related posts about this issue:

• More SeeClickFix Successes in DC
• DDOT Director, D.C. Councilmember Take Action in Response to SeeClickFix Report
• SeeClickFix DC: More Responsive Government at Your Fingertips

Food trucks like the Fojol Brothers' can enliven urban spaces, but regulators haven't figured out how to treat them yet. Photo by jsmjr on Flickr.

Yesterday morning, Prince of Petworth pointed out the opening of DC’s newest food truck, Sauca.  You can track its location here.

Sauca is the latest addition to our local food cart explosion, joining the likes of the Fojol Brothers, SweetFlow and On the Fly.  To foodies’ delight, street food has been popping up all over D.C. and across the nation.  These carts are not your typical National Mall-hot dog-and-pretzel stands, but a new breed of gourmet, tech-savvy food trucks.  Many of them are “mobile” in more ways than one, using Twitter to alert followers of their ever-changing locations, and lengthy Twitter lists keep track of food carts across America.  There’s an entire podcast series, VendrTV, highlighting curbside vendors around the world.  New York City even hosts an annual event dedicated to honoring the city’s best street vendors, the Vendys!

Planners are thrilled at the food cart craze too, as carts can enliven the urban environment and revive dead spaces, such as parking lots.  In times of recession, street food seems even more important, providing affordable eating options to citizens and allowing culinary entrepreneurs to open businesses with lower start-up costs.

However, this trend has developed in spite of the challenges facing mobile food vendors.  Food carts don’t seem to fit into cities’ normal regulatory structures – they’re mobile and can cross jurisdictional lines, but they also need to park, and are often not welcome in public or private spaces. They sell food and need to pass health inspections, but they’re not traditional brick-and-mortar restaurants. They offer a service to customers but not necessarily amenities like restrooms.  D.C. is no stranger to these complexities, as discussed in this Washington Post article tracing the history of the food cart scene.

In 2004, D.C. created a downtown demonstration zone where the street vending rules were relaxed.  Soon after, the city lifted its moratorium on new vending licenses, and in 2007, it started granting new licenses.  The problem was that the necessary studies and legislative work with the D.C. Council was not completed as quickly as expected, so the old regulations remained in place.  This meant that vendors outside the demonstration zone had to deal with outdated rules like the following:

• Carts must be no more than 7 feet long and 4 ½ feet wide, which makes it hard to cook/sell anything too complex
• Carts must be stored in one of three depots overnight (the Post had some interesting comments on the politics behind these depots)
• There must be a 10-foot cushion between carts, making outdoor cart clusters or “food courts” difficult
• There must be a 300-foot buffer between any church and carts

Three years later, street vendors are still in the same boat.  The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs has proposed new rules for mobile food vending, but the D.C. Council has yet to approve them.

D.C. is not alone in its predicament.  Mobile food vendors are having a tough time across the country, and local governments seem unable to reach a solution, which would undoubtedly involve the thorny approach of cross-agency cooperation.  As a result, food cart entrepreneurs face issues such as:

• Being forbidden to park for more than one hour at a time in a certain location unless they can provide restrooms (Tulare County, Calif.)
• A patchwork of different regulations and permit requirements for food trucks operating in a wider area (Los Angeles)
• Zoning rules blocking private property from being used for hosting food trucks (Santa Monica, Calif.)

Portland, Ore. seems to be one of the few places where observers have positive things to say about food cart regulations.  “The City has stayed out of the way, mostly,” says one professional who has worked with food trucks.  As long as stationary mobile carts have functional wheels, an axle for towing, and are located in a commercial zone, they are considered vehicles and are not required to conform to the zoning or building code.  The city encourages food carts on private property, and “pods” of carts cluster in parking lots, often never leaving the space and paying a monthly fee of about $500.  Electricity and wastewater disposal issues are primarily addressed on a complaint-driven basis.  Licenses are affordable (around $300), and the health department regulates food carts in the same way that all businesses that prepare and sell food products are regulated.

The most commonly heard complaint is that with their lower overhead and fewer land use and building permitting requirements, carts compete unfairly with conventional restaurants.  The City attempts to mediate these disputes.

Portland continues to be proactive about developing its food cart policy.  Recognizing the importance of food carts to the city goals of workforce development, equitable economic opportunity and livability, the government recently commissioned a study of the effects of food trucks.  Additionally, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has proposed the installation of food carts in the mostly vacant lots next to transit stations.

On the other hand, it seems like other cities have a long way to go in understanding and capitalizing on the benefits of food trucks.  With D.C.’s budding network of innovative street vendors and growing foodie scene, the city should step up and create a model for the rest of the country to follow.  Of late, local policymakers have shown great interest in implementing temporary urbanism and creatively activating underused spaces.  Figuring out the food truck conundrum would fit right into this progressive urban agenda.

VRE trains are one option for Washington, D.C.'s regional commuters. Photo by M.V. Jantzen.

The Washington Post’s Get There blog announced yesterday that Virginia Railway Express is planning service upgrades due to the availability of additional train parking space at L’Enfant station. These will include a new early morning express train from Fredericksburg, which will stop at L’Enfant Station and Union Station (this express service would take one hour to reach L’Enfant instead of the 1.5-hour travel time of the regular service.) Additionally, VRE will add cars to existing trains.

While these changes on their own are unlikely to have a big effect on area commuting patterns, they raise an important question: How is the D.C. metro area approaching regional transportation, and how should it be?

This issue has grown increasingly relevant in recent decades. Commuting has become more regional, as suburbs — then exurbs — spread farther from city centers. We now not only have metropolises but megalopolises.

What’s more, exurban commuters overwhelmingly drive alone to work. For instance, according to the 2008 American Community Survey, 81% of Loudon County workers drove alone to work, and only 2% took public transportation. Similarly, in Spotsylvania County, 76% of workers drove alone, while 5% took public transportation.

With people settling in increasingly dispersed patterns, it is difficult to provide them with alternatives to the automobile. However, offering fast, convenient, high-quality options is key to shifting regional commuters out of their cars.

In the D.C. area, exurban commuters have limited choices. If Virginia residents live within walking, biking or driving distance of one of 16 stops along two VRE lines, they can take the train. Travel times are similar to driving times when accounting for traffic, but there are only six trains from Fredericksburg during the morning peak, six from Manassas, and none of those are express trains.

Suburban Maryland residents can take the MARC train, but except for the Penn Line, there are only a handful of trains with limited stops during morning and afternoon peaks. There are a few Amtrak trains usable by commuters, but they leave infrequently and fares are high. Additionally, travelers can utilize various commuter bus systems, but travel times are longer and transferring between lines or modes is often necessary.

President Obama’s high speed rail program may be a step in the right direction. $620 million in stimulus funding will go towards developing a high speed rail corridor stretching from Charlotte to Washington. This project will put many people to work on its construction, and once completed, it will serve as an attractive, efficient alternative to the automobile that will lure drivers out of their cars.

However, as a recent Washington Post editorial points out, high speed rail projects are massive, take years to build and cost tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, service cuts are threatened for some of the few regional commuting alternatives that do exist. This contrast begs the question: how are our transportation dollars best spent?

The Post asks why stimulus funds weren’t dedicated to improving the Acela’s infrastructure. Similarly, should more funds be devoted to the operating expenses of our existing transit services? After all, money spent on maintaining – and even improving – important services like the VRE and MARC has the potential to save jobs and cut carbon emissions today.

While you ponder these big questions, tell the VRE what you think of their proposed service changes before they finalize them.

Post script: if you’re interested in transportation in the L’Enfant Plaza area, you may want to attend the public meeting on proposed mobility improvements held by the National Capital Planning Commission tonight at 5:30 at 401 9^th Street, NW.

It has been fascinating experimenting with SeeClickFix over the past three months. While initially skeptical of the tool that claims to combine civic engagement, online social networking, and local politicos to fix real world problems, I’ve been amazed at the effectiveness of this site. SeeClickFix has allowed me to create noticeable changes in my own Adams Morgan Neighborhood including:

• Fixing a dangerous pedestrian crossing at 18th St/Florida/U St by installing signage.
  
  • DDOT Director Klein, Councilmember Graham and ANC Commissioner Wilson Reynolds responded

• Fixing (trimming) overgrown bushes at the Marie Reed Community Center that had become a haven for criminals
  • ANC Commissioner Stacey Moye responded and CCed DC’s Urban Forestry Administration and Department of Parks and Recreation

• Fixing (re-erecting) a no parking sign that had been knocked down after a tree was removed on my block
  • Councilmember Graham, DDOT’s Aaron Rhones and James Burney responded
    

SeeClickFix really is more responsive government at your fingertips!

The first image shows the extent of development if existing local and state laws and policies remain unchanged. The second shows a smart growth scenario where local zoning becomes more closely tied to where the state and counties have agreed to prioritize development (Priority Funding Areas). The result of such an expanded smart growth program, MDP predicts, would be approximately 500,000 fewer acres developed over the next 20 years. That acreage represents 8% of the state’s total land area saved from development. Currently 20% of Maryland is developed. So if left unchecked the state’s developed land area could increase by about 54% in the next 20 years even though the population will only increase by 17.5%!

Under the Current Policies Scenario, the following assumptions are used:

• Current small area forecasts (where available in the state) are used to direct growth. Where small area forecasts are not available, MDP estimates future growth by assessing recent trends in the area.
• This scenario results in approximately 650,000 new developed acres in Maryland by 2030.

Under the Smart Growth Scenario, the following assumptions are used:

• 80% of future growth is directed to Priority Funding Areas (PFAs).
• Allowable density inside PFAs is at least 4 dwelling units per acre.
• Allowable density outside PFAs is 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres or less dense.
• This scenario results in approximately 150,000 acres of new developed acres in Maryland by 2030 (500,000 fewer acres than under current programs).

If you look closer at the two images, you’ll notice that the anticipated sprawl on eastern shore and the western panhandle of Maryland are virtually unaffected by the policy changes. The vast majority of the difference in the  scenarios is the degree to which development infiltrates counties and portions of counties just outside the already heavily populated Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan area. Notice the dramatic difference in Frederick, Charles, and Harford Counties between the two scenarios.

The no action scenario would not only wreak havoc on resource based economies of the state, but through fragmentation it would render much of the state’s publicly-funded protected conservation and agricultural lands useless for both wildlife and farming. The trend would also mean increasing problems for the Chesapeake Bay where stormwater runoff from suburbanization is already the fastest growing source of pollution. Perhaps most importantly for the everyday lives of the general population, the baseline scenario would cause disastrous  problems for the state’s transportation infrastructure. By spreading the population so thinly, it would be virtually impossible to move the next million Marylanders by any means other than private automobiles.

Be sure to check out my other recent posts on the flaws of Maryland nationally acclaimed smart growth policy and the enduring underlying causes of sprawl in American metropolitan areas.

Check out this great event coming to DC Friday and Saturday!

Looking at M Street, SE from First Street. Flickr photo courtesy of Pak Gwei.

With so much attention focused on the 15th Street protected contraflow bike lane, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that this is just the first of several low cost separated bike lanes that DDOT is looking to install around the District. Apparently the Department is examining similar facilities on L Street and M Street near the Ballpark. Details on the latter of these two options are just coming coming to light. The plan for M Street involves a two-way facility between 6th Street, SW and 11th Street, SE that is quite a bit more ambitious than the completed 15th Street project.

The road(pictured above) is literally the main street for near southeast and the ballpark district. It passes two metro stops on different lines, comes within a block of the stadium and several development projects already underway, and connects two disparate sections of the Anacostia Riverfront Trail. It would be the only major east-west bicycle route in the District south of the National Mall. Such a prominent facility would go a long way towards promoting the visibility of biking in the region. JD Land did an excellent job of covering the alternative options for M Street and the salient issues that need to be worked through before the project can begin. Preliminary estimates peg the project’s costs just over $400,000.

Is this a bus or a train? Hard to tell! Photo by World Resources Institute Staff.

One of the hottest transportation debates in the region these days relates to the proposed Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) envisions a 14-mile transit link roughly following I-270 from the Shady Grove Metro station in Gaithersburg  to Clarksburg near Frederick County. MTA is considering both bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail (LRT) alternatives. The project is  part of a larger effort to reduce congestion and improve travel times in the rapidly growing area to the northwest of the District that extends to Frederick and beyond. That larger effort encompasses various proposed reconfigurations of I-270 and US 15 that could add HOV or general purpose lanes to the two roadways.

The CCT debate is complicated by Gaithersburg West “Science City,” a Johns Hopkins University proposal to build 8 million square feet of life science research and development space that would more than double the county’s current inventory of such facilities. The project would support 60,000 new jobs as it is phased-in in the next 30-40 years. On November 17th, the Montgomery County Council voted 6-3 to support a LRT alternative over BRT for the CCT. Their preference for light rail echoes the growing trend of light rail projects nationwide. They also supported two reversible toll lanes that would be free for buses, carpools and van pools. The vote supported an amended CCT alignment that would route the transitway through Gaithersburg West.

If MTA goes forward with the Montgomery County Council recommendation, the increased cost of the light rail choice could render the project basically unfundable from a federal standpoint. Indeed, the debate between BRT and LRT may be a hollow one. According to the Washington Post, the choice of LRT would double the cost of the project for virtually the same ridership.

Image couresy of the Washington Post's Laris Karklis.

The Federal Transit Administration has strict cost-effectiveness requirements for transit projects both regionally and nationally. Exchanging the CCT’s more competitive “high” cost-effectiveness rating for a lesser “medium” rating  would severely hinder its chances of success in the fierce competition that is the cumbersome federal New Starts program. Transit advocates would be wise to look at this as more of a debate between BRT and no CCT at all.  According to the Washington Post, the CCT…

“would compete for scarce federal construction money along with two other Maryland projects: a Purple Line between Bethesda and New Carrollton and a Red Line in Baltimore. Council members who supported a less-expensive busway option for the transitway said the state has little chance of winning highly competitive federal money for three relatively expensive light rail lines. “

A brief conversation about BRT vs. light rail for the CCT played out on radio station WAMU yesterday between EMBARQ Director Nancy Kete, and President of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce Georgette Godwin. Kete pointed to the EMBARQ-led Metrobus system in Mexico City which sports two bus rapid transit lines. That project took just three years to plan and launch and now serves 450,000 passengers per day, nearly half of the number of daily passengers who ride the D.C. Metro and at a fraction of the price of the heavy rail Metro system. Fifteen percent of Mexico City’s BRT ridership are people who have exchanged their cars for the quicker bus service.

Kete goes on to state that those unfamiliar with BRT should think of it “more like a rail system on rubber wheels.” Time savings brought through dedicated lanes and traffic light preemption combined with station platforms (pictured at the top) and other elements that mimic a rail user experience are all important components of any BRT system. Godwin and the business community feel that light rail represents “a permanent commitment” to transit that will trigger economic development and dense urban infill projects in a way that BRT will not.