Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bicycle Planning For The National Capital Region
Bicycle Planning For The National Capital Region
Bicycle Planning For The National Capital Region
July 2006
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board
CREDITS
Technical Oversight
Ronald F. Kirby
Gerald K. Miller
Report Authors
Michael J. Farrell
Andrew Meese
Contributors
Andrew Austin
Wendy Klancher
Jim Sebastian
Jim Yin
Credits
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CREDITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
I. PLANNING CONTEXT
A. Overvic\IV ........................................................................................... 1-I
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
0-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. BEST PRACTICES
A. Enhance Agency Efforts to Incorporate Bicycle and Pedestrian
Elements in jurisdictional plann ing and design polices ................ 5-1
B. Develop and Adhere to Consistent Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility
and Construction Standards in each Jurisdiction ....................... 5-3
C. Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Circu lation 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 Project .......................................................... 5-8
H TPB Shall Compile and Report on Best Practices Regarding
Wayfinding and Signage for Bicyc lists and Pedestrians in the
0-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX:
A. 2006 Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
B. Project Database Data Dictionary and Sample Database Entry Form
C. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the 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.
0-3
i-1 , TPB Planning Area, Washington DC-MD-VA Metropol itan Statistical Area ............... i-4
1- 1, Sources of the Plan Projects .......................................................................................... 1-15
2-1, 2000 Bike Comm ute 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 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects .......................................................................... 6-6
6-2, Major Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the Central Washington Region ................. . 6-7
6-3, Major Bicycle and 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 Pedestrian 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 Bicycle/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 Metropo litan Areas ....................................... 2- 1
2-3, 2002 Metro Core Cordon Counts ................................................................................. Append ix 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, Walk and Bike Comm ute Distance ............................................................................... 2-13
2-8, Distance from Home to Alternative Mode Meeting Point ............................................ 2-14
2-9, Means of Getting from Home to Alternative Mode Meeting/Transfer Point ............... 2-14
2-l 0, Origin Station Sorted by %Walk Mode of Access ..................................................... Appendix G
2- 11 , Origin Station Sorted by% Bike Mode of Access ...................................................... Appendix H
3-1 , Selected 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 Facilities in the Washi ngton Region ................................ 6-1
6-2, Imputed Costs ................................................................................................................ 6-2
6-3, Mapped Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects ....................................................................... 6-3
Charts
2-1, Percentage of Workers Walking to Work ..................................................................... 2-3
2-2, Percentage of Workers Biking to Work ........................................................................ 2-3
2-3, Bicycling in the Metro Core ......................................................................................... 2-9
2-4, Walk/Bike Commute Mode Share by Annual Household Income ............................... 2- 11
2-5, Wa lk/Bike Commute Mode Share by Ethnicity ... ..................... ..... ...... ........................ 2-11
2-6, Walk/Bike Commute Mode Share by Age .. ..................... ............................................ 2-12
2-7, Estimated Bicycle Trips from the COG Household Travel Survey .............................. 2-16
3- 1, Average Annual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities in the Washington Region,
1994-2004 ....................................... ...................................................................................... 3-2
3-2, Pedestrian , Bicyclist, and Motorized Traffic Fatalities in the Washington Region,
1994-2004 3-2
3-3, Average Amllla l Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities, 1994-2003 .................................. 3-3
3-4, Average Annual Pedestrian and Bicycl ist Fatalities per l 00,000 people, 1994-2003 .. 3-4
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Overview
The Bicycle and 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 lities since 1995, and
represents the first-ever regiona l pedestrian fac ilities plan .
In addition to building upon the TPB Vision, the Bicycle and 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. These include the TPB's Transportation and Community and
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 and 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 and 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 region's Access for
All Committee concerning minority, low-income, and disabled communities. The TPB supports
bicycling and walking a nd their health, community, pollution reduction, and congestion
reduction benefits for the region.
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 for
increasing these 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 di 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
T he Washington region benefits from a number of popular bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
place in our communities (Chapter 4). T he 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 a ugment the existing system of facilities.
Best Practices
Convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian access is a key goa l of the TPB's Vision. To help
achieve this, the Bicyc le 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 incorporation of bicycling and walking considerations into overall roadway and
trans it design. Best practices are based upon nationa l and state Jaws and gu idelines.
Executive Summary
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 cost 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 esti mates were not available. Total
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-Line Resources
Development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region has benefited
from an on-1ine 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 edit their
project li stings on-line. This on-line database will fac ilitate keeping the regional list accurate
and up-to-date, and wi ll fac ili tate integration of information fiom this plan into the region's
Constrained Long-Range Plan and Transp01iation Improvement Program as necessary . An onli ne 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 activity 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 and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region provides a blueprint for making the
region a better place for bicycling and walking.
E-3
Executive Summary
E-4
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board has long recognized the benefits of
bicycling and walking in the region ' s mu lti-moda l transportation system. The Transportation
Planning Board' 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 Vision is a strong urban core
and a set of regional activity centers,
wh ich wi ll provide fo r mixed uses in a
walkable environment and reduced
reliance on the automobi Ie. 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 Vision.
Bicycling and Walking in the Nationa l
Capital Region
Taken together, bicycling and walking is a significant mode of transpottation in the Washington
region. Accord ing to the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments'
1999 Household Travel Survey there are roughly 1.1
Walking and
million pedestrian trips per day in the region, which is 7.8% of all trips.
Bicycling
There are roughly 76,000 bicycle trips per day in the region, which is
account for 8. 3% one-half of one percent of the almost 14 million dail y trips for all modes
of transportation.
of all trips in the
region
Recent years have seen progress for bicyclists and pedestrians. Several
maj or new trai ls have opened, and most loca l governments have adopted
bicycle, pedestrian, and/or trail plans. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has
1
INTRODUCTION
e liminated the requirement for bike-on-rail permits, expanded bicycle boarding hours, and added
bike racks to its buses. Bicycle or pedestrian coordinators and trail planners are now found at
most levels of government. ln accordance with federal guidance a nd new state policies,
pedestrian and bicycle faci lities are increas ingly being provided as pat1 of larger transportation
projects. Employers are investing in bike fac ilities at work sites, a nd developers are inc luding
paths in new construction. 2
Bicycling and walking could reach a greater
potential in the Washington region, however.
Many trips currently taken by automobile could
potentially be taken by bicycle. The average
work trip length for a ll modes in the
Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area is
16.2 miles. 3 But 17% o f commute trips are less
than five miles, a distance most people can
cover by bicycle.
i-2
INTRODUCTION
This plan has been prepared by the National Capital Regi on Transportation Planning Board, the
federally designated Metropo litan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Washington region. The
TPB is made up of representatives of 20 local governments, the departments of transpo11ation of
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 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 of the TPB members plus Calvert County in Maryland and Stafford
County in Virginia comprises the Washington, DC-MD-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA).
This document presents the long-range Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Washington Region
through the year 2030. The plan is a list of regional projects identified by the TPB member
jurisdictions, accompanied by recommended best practices and a description of existing facilities
and regional trends for bicycling and walking. Th is plan includes both funded and unfunded
projects. It does not specify design guidelines, but refers instead to state and national guidelines
for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
This update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan for the National Capital Region seeks to
reflect the goals, objectives and strategies of
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 me. Pedestrian planning is
most needed at the county, city and
neighborhood level. There is, however, a role
for regional pedestrian planning.
By
recommend ing policies and keeping track of
regional trends, we can help make the
Washington area a better place to walk. 7
INTRODUCTION
Figure i-1
TPB Planning Area, Washington DC-MD-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
'
--
...
D
[
10 Mil~
i-4
Chapter 1
Planning Context
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
Overview
This Bicycle and 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 Board , 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 bicycle and pedestrian plans.
The Vision of the Transportation 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.
2r
1
The TPB's officia l vision statement for the region, the Transportation Vision for the
Century, adopted in 1998, is meant to guide regional transpOJtation
The Vision of the
investments into the new century. The Vision is not a plan with a map
or specific lists of projects. It lays out eight broad goals, with
TPB calls for
associated objectives and strategies that will help the region reach its
more Wa/king
goals.
and Biking
1-1
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
Table 1-1:
Bicycle and 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:
Make the region 's transportation faci lities safer, more accessible and less
Strategy 3:
intimidating for pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with specia l needs.
The Washington metropolitan region will develop. implement. and
Goal 2.
maintain an interconnected transportation svstem that enhances qua lity of life and
promotes a strong and growing economy through the entire region. includi ng a hea lthy
regional core and dynam ic region activity center with a mix of jobs. housing. and services
in a walkable environment,_
Objective 2: Economically strong regional activity centers with a mix of j obs, housing,
services, and recreation in a walkable environment.
Objective 4: Improved internal mobility with reduced reliance on the automobile
within the regiona l core and within regional activity centers.
Goal 5.
The Washington metropolitan region will plan and develop a
transpot1ation system that enhances and protects the region's natura l environmental
quality. cultura l and historic resources. and communities.
Objective 3:
Strategy 7:
Accompanying the Vision is a shorter action 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 congestion management system to achieve significant reduction in
single occupant vehicles (SOVs) entering the regional core and regiona l activity centers
by:
designing and developing circulation systems that maximize the use of transit
(ra il, monorail , bus, jitney. etc.) and pedestrian and bicycle facilities
1-2
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
The Greenways
and Circulation
Systems Reports
identifY specific
projects that
support the TPB
Vision
1
l-3
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
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.
CHAPTER!:
PLANNING CONTEXT
safety
air quality
economic development
households served
employees served
cost
Downtown DC Circulator
New York A venue Metro Station Access
Union Station Bike Station
Montgomery County CBD Shuttle Package
Rockville Town Center
Suitland Metro Area Bus and Pedestrian Improvements
Old Town Fairfax Redevelopment
Rosslyn Circle Crossing
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 p lanners 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.
Virginia now
requires ((routine
accommodation''
ofpedestrians
and bicyclists in
transportation
projects
www.virginiadol.org
1-5
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
including highway design. construction. reconstruction. and repair."' 5 The Maryland Department
of Transportation is to work to ensure"' that transportation options for pedestrians 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 persons with disabilities. Oregon, Virginia, South Carolina, and a number of other
regions and c ities 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.
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, they 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, Twenty Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access .\laster Plan. October, 2002.
p. 32.
6
\1\\ w.comp letestn:l'h.org
1-6
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
installation of curb ramps and accessible signals such that pedestrian routes are, when viewed in
their entiret~, 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 transit funds.
Aside from the general increase in funding under SAFETEA-LU, the most important new setaside 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 set aside for non-infrastructure projects.
American Council for the Blind, Pedestrian Safety Handbook: A Handbook for Advocates. www.acb.org
See www.bikeleague.org for further information on the Bicycle and Pedestrian provisions of SAFETEA-LU.
1-7
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
Funds will be administered by State Departments of Transportation, with I00% federal share no local match required. Each state is to receive funds in proportion 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.
18
The Transportation
Improvement
Program includes
$122 millionfor
pedestrian and
bicycle projects
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING 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. For example, the
Fisca l Year 2006-201 1 TlP includes $ 122 million for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Of that,
$69 million is programmed for FY 2006, which is 2.4 % of the total capital fu nds fo r all
transportation projects programmed fo r FY 2006. As with the CLRP, fu nds spent on bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations as patt of a larger hi ghway or transit project are often subsumed in
budget of the larger project.
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 loca l and state plans and studies
and the year published. Juri sdictions and agencies drew projects from these individual plans and
submitted them for incorporation into the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Local plans
may include unfunded projects.
1-9
CHAPTER I :
PLANNING CONTEXT
Table 1-2:
M ajor Bicycle and Pedestria n Pla ns and Studies
Of the Washington Region
Jurisd iction/
Agency
Pla n/Study
Year
Arlington
County
1997,
1994
City of
Alexandria
Pedestrian Transportation
Plan,
Bicycle Transp01tation Plan
Bicycle Transportation and
Multi-Use Trail Plan
District of
Columbia
2005
Fairfax
County
Frederick County
2002
1999
City of
Gaithersburg
Loudoun County
1999
2003
Maryland
Depa1tment of
Transportation
2002
1999
Montgomery
County
Countywide Bikeways
Functional Master Pl an
2005
Nationa l Capital
Planning
Commission
National Capital Region
Transportat ion Planning
Boa rd
2004
200 1,
1995
National Park
Service
1-10
1998
1990
CHAPTER!:
PLANNING CONTEXT
J urisdiction/
Agency
Plan/Study
Year
Prince William
County
1998, 1993
2003
City of
Rockville
Virginia Department of
Transportation,
Northern Virginia
Office
1998
Table 1-3 shows the approximate number of fu ll-time planners each agency has working on
bicycle, pedestrian, and trails planning.
Table 1-3:
Agency Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Staff
Full-Time Equivalents (FTE's)
Jurisdiction/
Agency
Bicycle Planner
FTE's
Pedestrian Planner
FTE's
Arlington
County
City of
Gaithersburg
City of
Alexandria
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
City of
Rockville
District of
Columbia
0.5
0.5
Fairfax
County
1-11
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
Pedestrian Planner
FTE's
Trails P lanner
FTE's
0.33
0.33
Jurisdiction/
Agency
Bicycle Planner
FTE's
Frederick County
0.5
Loudoun County
0.5
Maryland
Department of
Transportation
MNCPPCMontgomery County
MNCPPCPrince George's
County
Montgomery
County
National Capital
Region
Transpottation
Planning Board
0.5
0.5
National Park
Service
Prince William
County
Virginia Depatiment
of Transportation,
Northern Virginia
Office
\VMATA
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1-12
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
bicycle plan, and from state and local plans. The subcommittee has compiled and forwarded li sts
to TPB regularly since 1995, to be included in the so licitation document for the TIP/CLRP. In
essence, the TPB urges the jurisdictions to consider funding these projects, which the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Subcom mittee has judged to be regionally significant, within six years.
The selection criteria for inclusion in this short li st were drawn fiom those used in the TCSP
Greenways and Circulation Systems Reports . The following criteria were used:
Bicycle Network Connectivity: priority was given to proj ects that enhanced connectivity of
faci Iities on the regional bicycle faci lities network.
Pedestrian Safe 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 them.
Access to Transit: priority was given to projects that enhanced access to Metrorail stations
and other maj or transit stops or facilities.
T ime Fra me: all projects should be able to be completed by 20 I l, the end of the TIP time
frame.
Local Support: the project is a priority for the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which it is
located.
Still seeking fundin g: the project does not yet have fu ll construction funding committed to
it.
Reasona ble Cost: the total cost of the list shou ld be a reasonable fractio n of the total
spendi ng in the region on highways and bridges.
While considerable weight is given to the preference of the representative of the jurisdiction,
subcommittee members are urged to think in terms of the regional selection criteria when
nominating projects.
Projects are dropped from the list when they receive funding, or if the subcommittee and
nominating jurisdiction dec ide that priorities have changed. Most projects on past li sts have
been funded. Seven proj ects totaling $11,508,000 were funded from the 2000 list, and fiv e
projects from the 2002 list were fully or parti ally funded. Projects funded since 1995 include:
>>>>;....
:;>
;....
:;>
1-13
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
1-14
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING CONTEXT
Figure 1-1
Regional Pri ority
Unfunded Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Projects
'I
v
~~
Priorities
2000
Priority
Projects
Outlook
The TPB has a continuing commitment to inclusion of both bicycle and pedestrian elements in
long-range transp01tation plans. Bicyc le and pedestrian plan elements in the regional plans are
drawn from jurisdictional plans and policies. The regiona l Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in tum
will advise the choices made by TPB member agencies for the inclusion of bicycle and
pedestrian projects in future Constrained Long Range Plans and Transportation rmprovement
Programs.
1-15
Chapter 2
Bicycling and Walking in the Washington Region
Overview
Residents of the Washington region walk and bicycle at about the same rate as the nation as
a whole. Tables 2-l and 2-2 show the share of
Table 2-1
%Walk
walking and bicycling trips to work for the ten
Pedestrian Commuting in to
the Ten Largest
Work
largest metropolitan areas.
1
Walking and bicycling are decl ining
as modes of transportation both in the
Washington region and nationally.
Nationally, 0.38% of American
workers bicycled to work in 2000,
and 2.93% walked. Tn 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 growing, and walking and
public transportation declining, for many decades.
In 1960, 9.9% of workers walked to work, but
only 2.93% did so in 2000.2
Nationally}
10% of all
urban area
trips are made
onfootor by
bike
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Metropolitan Areas
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Chicago
Washington
Los Angeles
Detroit
Houston
Dallas-Fort Worth
United States
Table 2-2:
Bicycle Commuting in the
Ten Largest Metropolitan
Areas
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Boston
Philadelphia
Chicago
Houston
New York
Washington
Detroit
Dallas--Fort Worth
United States
5.55%
4.12%
3.88%
3.25%
3.13%
3.10%
2.56%
1.83%
1.62%
1.48%
2.93%
%
Bike to
Work
1.12%
0.63%
0.38%
0.33%
0.31%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.18%
0.14%
0.38%
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,
Vol. 57, No.3, Summer 2003 (49-77). Page 54.
2- 1
Ethnicity, geography, age, and car ownership 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 walk 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 only
one car are more likely to walk or bicycle than those owning two. Middle-income groups are
slightly less likely to walk or bicycle than either low-income or the high-income groups.
Hispanics are most likely to walk or bike to work.
Distance is a major barrier to commuter eye!ing, 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 walkable 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 jobs, housing,
services, and recreation in a walkable environment.
4 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 200./ Bike to Work Day Survey- Summa1y of Results, June,
2005. Page 6.
2-2
Ptince WIIItm
'-------l
Loudoun :...__j
Falrtax
'-----'
AJexandlia
Arlington
Plinc. George
Montgomery
Fredetid:
Charlet
CaNert
Oa1ct ol Columbo
200%
4.00%
1000%
1200%
1<C)()'JI.
loudoun
Fairfax
~
~
f----..1
1-----J
Alexandria
Mlngton
Bik~ 1990
0 Bike2000
Prince George's
Montgomery
Fre<:tenck
Chartes
Calwrt
~
~
061nct of Coklmbla
000%
()~
Oao'JI.
100'JI.
Genera lly, the urban core of the Washington region, consist ing of the District of Columb ia,
Arlington, and Alexandria, has experienced modest losses in pedestrian mode share and
cons iderab le gains in bicycl ing. The Di strict of Co lumbia has maintained its pedestrian
mode share for the journey to work, while increasing its bicycle mode share considerably.
The outer suburban jurisdictions had relati ve ly few people bicycling or walking to work in
1990, and that number fell further during the decade that followed.
2-3
2-4
Figure 2-1 :
2000 Bike Commute Mode Share
By Census Tract
Legend
I o% - o .12%
0 12%-0.4 3%
0 44% - 1.22%
1.23% - 2.76%
Mies
~ Water
0 25
2-5
10
15
20
Figure 2-2:
2000 Bike Commute Mode Share
By Census Tract
2-6
Mle s
Figure 2-3:
2000 Walk Commute Mode Share
{
(:5
<
By Census Tract
A
Loudolw C.:>.
Legend
0
0-
5. 7 ~o
0 5.8o - 16.4o
D 16.5o - 33.60,o
33.7o- 84 . 2~o
ti les
0 2.$ S
~ Water
2-7
'0
IS
:?0
Legend
Metro Statio"\
Figure 2-4:
2000 Wa lk Commute Mode Share
By Census Tract
A -0
I 2
2-8
Miles
4
Growing
Rapidly in
Downtown D. C.
and North
Arlington
The counts show that bicycle traffic into the downtown Metro core is
growing rapidly, w ith 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 of Columbia has grown steadi ly from 474
in 1986 to 1,379 in 2002. The number of cycli 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 1999 and 2002, wh ile Potomac bridge traffic declined slightly over the same period ,
indicating that more people are bicycling to destinations, probably 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 of the Metro Core
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1986
1987
1988
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
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 crossing the beltway in 1995, 1998, and 200 1.
2-9
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 income per year) than among the very high-income (more than $140,000 per
year). Bicycling and walking 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 fo r
all trips.
Chart 2-4: WalklBike Commute Mode Share by Annual Household Income
S140,000 +
$120,000 -139,999
$1 00,000 - 119,999
I
I
$80,000 - 99,999
$60,000-79,999
$30,000-59,999
Less than $30,000
0.00%
0.50%
1.00o/o
1.50%
2.00%
2-10
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
B. Ethn icity
Walk/bike commute mode share differs more by ethnicity than by income. Hispanics have
the highest walk/bike mode share at 3.8%, African-Americans the lowest at 1.5%.
Chart 2-5: Walk/Bike Commute Mode Share by Ethnicity
W1ite
I
t-is panic
As ian
A f rican-Arrerican
I
0.00% 0.50%
I
1.00% 1.5C% 2.00%
2.50%
National data fo r all trips, however, show African-Americans and Hispanics both walking
for about 12% of all trips, though African-Americans bicycle less. Whites walk less than
any other ethn ic group, but take 0.9% of their tri ps by bike, the same as H ispan ics.5
C. Age
Chart 2-6 shows walk/bike commute mode share by age. People under 35 and over 65 are
more like ly to walk or bike to work than the midd le-aged. Nationally the elderly have
a lower than average mode share for bicycling, so we can presume that most of the elderly
are wa lking rather than bicycling.
5 Ibid, p. 68.
2-11
65+
55-64
45-54
l
I
I
I
I
35-44
I
I
25-34
>25
0.00%
I
0.50%
I
I
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
D. State of Residence
State of residence strongly predicts the like lihood of walking or bicycling to work, with
8.7% of District of Columbia residents walking or bicycling, versus 1.4% of Maryland
residents and 1.5% of Virginia residents. Di strict of Columbia residents are much less likely
to own cars than Virginia or Maryland residents, are more li kely to be low- income, and tend
to live closer to transit or within wa lking distance of work.
Vehicles per household is another strong predictor, as shown in Table 2-5. People in
households without any vehicles are much more likely to walk or bike to work than
households that own one, while those living in households with one vehicle are more likely
to wa lk or bicycle to work than those owning more than one vehicle. Non-work trips also
shift radically away from walking in households that have at least one car.
2- 12
Table 2-5
Wa lk/Bike Mode Sha re by Number of Vehicles
Number of
Vehicles in the
Household
Walk/Bike
Commute Mode
Share
Walk Mode Share
-All Trirs
(NPTS)E
Bike Mode Share
-All Trips (NPTS)
4+
11.40%
3.70%
1.20%
1.40%
0.60%
41 .1%
12.5%
7.8%
6.3% (3
or more)
2.4%
0.7%
0.9%
0.8% (3
or more)
Trip Distances
Distance was the third most frequently cited reason, by 3 1% of respondents, to COG/TPB 's
Bike to Work Day survey to explain why they were not riding to work. Reasons One and
Two were " Don' t like to ride in rain/cold/hot weather" (42%) and 'No safe route" (35%).
So trip distance is of great interest when gauging the potential for increasing bicycling (or
walking). The 2004 SOC survey asked respondents about the length of their commutes.
Commute mileage is shown in Table 2-6 below.
Less than 5
miles
17%
5 to 9
miles
19%
10 to 14 miles
18%
15 to 19
miles
13%
20+ miles
34%
The mean commute distance in the Washington region is 16.2 miles. However, 17% of
commutes in the Washington region are less than five miles and therefore potentially bikable
on a daily basis. The median commute distance for Washington-area bicyclists is five miles.
Table 2-7 shows walk and bike average and median commute distances in mi les for
pedestrian s and bicyclists, from the 2004 State ofthe Commute Survey data.
MEAN
MED IAN
1.42
8.17
1.00
5.00
144
32
6 Ibid, p. 57.
2- 13
Another major potential source of walk or bike trips is the trip to transit, park and ride lot, or
vanpoo l and carpool pick-up point. As shown in Table 2-8, access trips to alternative mode
meetings points tended to be short. Respondents traveled an average of 3. 1 miles. The
majority of respondents (59%) traveled one mile or less to the meeting point. Another 26%
said they traveled between two and five miles. Only 15% ofrespondents traveled more than
five miles. Based on the distances being traveled, many ofthe 29% of respondents who are
currently driving to their alternative mode meeting point might be able to wa lk or bicycle
instead.
Tab le 2-8
Distance T raveled from Home to Alternative Mode Meeting Point
(n=l ,230)
Distance
Percentage
I mile or less
2 miles
3 miles
4 to 5 miles
6 to 10 miles
11 miles or more
59%
10%
7%
9%
10%
5%
Table 2-9
Means of Getting from Home to Alternative Mode Mectingffransfer Point
(n=l.577)
2- 14
Percentage
39%
15%
18%
11 %
9%
5%
1%
1%
2-15
70
r---------.
60
D Home-based
Work Trips/Day so t - - - - - - - - - -
(Commuting)
Total Trips/Day
~---~~3o r--10
1988
1994
1999
The number of pedestrian trips is higher than the number of bicycle trips. In the 1994
Household Travel Survey, we found that 7.8% of all trips were on foot, and that walking
accounted for 3.1 % of work trips. The 1988 Household Travel Survey only asked about
work trips, and this data does not include walking to transit.
In 1994, three fourths of all trips in the Washington region were for purposes other than
work, and those trips were relatively short trips, averaging between four and six miles in
length. 7 More than 80% of those non-work trips were auto trips, and another 4% were
schoo l bus trips.
Walking is the dominant mode of access to transit. The census walk to work mode share
does not include wa lk trips to transit, since a walk trip to transit is counted as a transit trip
rather than as a walk trip. In areas with hi gh transit ridership the census walk to work
numbers significantly undercount the amount of walking to or from v.rork. According to
the 2004 State ofthe Commute Survey, 83% of bus commuters walk to the bus. 8
7 /99./ COG TPB 1/ouseho/d Tra1el Survey: Swmnmy of.\lajor Findings. January, 1998. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, page 5.
8 200-1 State ofthe Commute Survey Results. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, p. 63.
2- 16
In 2002 WMATA surveyed passengers at all 83 of its Metrorail stations. The primary
purpose of the survey was to estimate the percentage of tota l ridership residing in each
jurisdiction . Passengers entering each Metro station were queried throughout the entire day,
so the "mode of access" number for any given Metro station includes both people on their
way to work or some other destination, and those on their way home. "Mode of
Access" is the mode people use to get to the station, not to leave it.
61%of
Metro rail
Passengers
Walk to the
Station
9 2002 WMAT A Rail Passenger Survey, W B&A Market Research, fiom the table "Origin Station by Mode of
Access".
2-17
fourteen stations located east of the Anacostia River in 2002, ten had no bicycle use at all.
All stations in Fai1fax and Montgomery Counties had some bicycle use. The WMATA Rail
Passenger Survey confirms what the census tells us about the di stribution of walking and
bicycling in the region, with walking and bicycling heavily concentrated in the Metro core
and at certain inner suburban stations.
Outlook
Growth in
Walking and
Bicycling will
likely occur in the
Urban Core and
Regional Activity
Centers
growth. 10 Under current zoning, far more workers are projected to arrive in the region than
there wi ll be homes built for them, and transport links will not be adequate for them to
comnlUte from outside the region. 11 The COG Board of Directors has concluded that some
land wi ll need to be replanned and re-zoned to accommodate sufficient housing to meet
employment projections. If redevelopment occurs in ways that are consistent with the TP B
Vision, creating activi ty centers that mix jobs, housing and services in a walkable
env ironment, conditions will be favorable for growth in walking and bicycling.
10 www.mwcog.org/planning
11 Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern ments, Growth Trends to 2030: Cooperative Forecasting in the
Washington Region, October, 2005. Pp. 2, 14-15.
2- 19
Data Sources
Major sources of data for bicycl ing and walking in the Washington region include the US Census,
the Commuter Connections State of the Commute Survey, the 1994 COG/TPB Household Travel
Survey, COG/TPB's cordon counts, pedestri an and bicycle crash data from the Depa1tments of
Transpottation, WMATA's 2002 Rail Passenger Survey, and the 2004 Bike to Work Day Survey.
A. 2000 US Census
The most fine-grained data on travel behavior comes from the Census. Every 10 years the
Census Bureau asks roughly one in seven individuals (those who fill out the 'long form') how
they get to work. People are polled at their home, not at their place of work. The most recent
data available is from the 2000 Census. The biggest limitation of the Census data is that it only
contain s com mute trips. Only one quarter of all trips in the Washington region are commute
trips. 12 However, commute trips occur at the most congested time of day.
B. 2002 COGffPB Cordon Counts
COGffPB s cordon counts are conducted by machine or in person, on specific roads or trails. In
cordon counts, COGffPB counts the volume of traffic crossing a series of points along an
imaginary circle. For example, one cordon line is the Capital Beltway. At approximately 60
points along the Beltway, COG/TPB counts al l vehicles crossing over or under the Beltway.
Another cordon line is known as the Metro Core, circling downtown DC and part of Arlington.
Counts take place on a single day, so results may vary widely depending on weather,
transportation incidents, security emergencies, or other factors. Pedestria ns are not counted.
Bicyclists crossing the cordon line may or may not be commuters; they are counted but not
stopped or asked their trip purpose. Tn most cases the numbers represent only one day of
counting and can not be viewed as a daily average.
C. 2004 Commuter Connections State of the Commuter Survey
The State ofthe Commute Survey is a random sample survey of 7,200 employed persons in the
12 counties and four independent cities of the Washington Metropolitan designated nonattainment region. Commuter Connections commissions this survey in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of its programs. The region polled is the Washington Metropolitan Statistical
Area, shown in figure
12 National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, 199-1 COGITPB Household Travel Suney: Surmnmy of
Major Findings. January, 1998. Page 4.
220
i-1 on page i-4. The sample size of the State ofthe Commute Survey permitted the calculation of
walk/bike mode shares by annual income, ethnicity, age, and state of residence.
The SOC survey does not provide any information on non-work trips. Surveys were canied out
from February i 11 to May 2nd, 2004, by telephone, and asked about behavior " last week". This
methodology differs somewhat from U.S. Census, which asks about behavior during the first
week in April. The 2001 and 2004 SOC surveys show lower numbers for walking and bicycling
than does the census.
WMA T A carried out a survey of rai I passengers in 2002. Surveys were carried out ben~een
April 8 and May 22, 2002. Data were col lected for the ful l day, divided into a.m. and p.m.
peak and off-peak periods. Subjects were interv iewed in Metro rail stations. T he primary
purpose of the survey was to allow WMATA to estimate the percentage oftotal ridership
residing in jurisdiction. However, the survey also asked riders what mode of transportation
2-2 I
they used to access or egress the station. 57,700 responses were gathered.
2-22
Chapter 3
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Overview
Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries are a serious problem in the Washington
region. Nearly a quarter of all traffic fatal ities in the reg ion are pedestrian or cycli st.
Every jurisdiction has a significant pedestrian sa fety problem. Pedestrian and bicyclist
fata lities account for at least 10% of total traffic fatalities in every major jurisdiction .
While areas and demographic groups are affected, some groups are more affected than
others. Urban areas and inner suburban areas are more heavily affected than the outer
suburbs, Hi spanics and African-Americans more than Whites and Asians.
This section wi ll describe the scope of the pedestrian and bicycle safety problem, its
distribution across the region by juri sdiction and ethn icity, and the legal rights and
responsibilities of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. It will also discuss the region's
efforts to deal with the problem through the Street Smart'" pedestrian and bicycle safety
campaign.
w\\
w.nhtsa.dot.gov
Regional totals compi led from data provided by the DistTict Department of Transportation, the Maryland Office of
llighway Safety, and the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
3-1
D Pedestrian Fatalities
Bicyclist Fatalities
0 Motorized Fatalities
282.9. 76 %
Chart 3-2 shows the yearly variations in traffic fata lities from 1994-2004. Overa ll traffic
fata lities were stable, and pedestrian and bicycle fatalities showed a s light downward
trend . However, population and vehi cle-miles traveled rose significantly during the
period, while the mode share of walking fell.
Chart 3-2: Pedestrian, Bicyclist, and Motorized Traffic Fatalities
In the Washington Region, 1994-2004
450
400
r-
350
r-
'----7
300
1-
r-
'- -:
250 1- 296 1 -
1-
,_
,_
1-
:-
-1-
r-
r-
r-
r-
1-
r-
1---:-
1-
1-
1-
r-
Dl~ otorized
286
278
258
248
200
r-
1-
1-
1-
1-
150
r-
1-
1-
1-
r-
100
50 1-94
eel-
1 - 3261 - 3181 -
1-
i-
281
1-
831- 84 -
307
D Pedestrian Fatalities
1-
1-
r--:
r-
1-
1--:
1-
I--:
1-
1-
1-
~
1-
1-
71
82
1998
1999
1-
as -
1-
78
1- 0 1-
78 1 - 85 1 -
1-
r-
84
0
1994
1995
1998
1997
3-2
2000
2001
2002
II Bicyclist Fatalities
318
c-- 218 1 -
1-
Fatalities
2003
2004
Pedestrian injuries exact a steep toll as well. Of the approximate ly 3,000 persons hit by
motor vehicles every year in the region, 90% suffer some sort of injury. Approximately
500 injured pedestrians every year require more than 24 hours of hospitalization, which at
an average cost of about $25,000 leads to more that $12 million in hospital ization charges
a lone. 3 This is probably only a fraction of the total financial costs, which would include
costs for those hospitalized for less than 24 hours, further medica l care, disability, and
lost time at work. Many ofthe people being hit can ill afford such a setback.
r-
25
20
--
15
r-
10
5
0
.--.
r-
1-
111-
Even when calculated as a rate per I 00,000 population, outer suburban jurisdictions had
lower fatality rates than inner jurisdictions, a difference that probably reflects the lower
pedestrian and bicycle mode share of the outer jurisdictions, as well as a daytime
Northern Virginia Injury Prevention Prevention Center, TNOVA Regional Trauma Center (2005). Pedestrian
lrywy in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region. Page 37.
4
Towns in Northern Virginia are not included in the surrounding Counties; their traffic fatalities are tallied
separately.
3-3
population in the District of Columbia nearly twice as high as its resident population.
Pedestrian and bicycle fatality rates in each jurisdiction are shown in Chart 3-4.
However, even the outer suburban jurisdictions have a serious pedestrian safety problem.
ln no major jurisdiction did pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities account for less than 10%
of total traffic fatalities.
Chart 3-4:
Average Annual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities Per 100,000 people, 1994
2003
4 r-----------------------------------------~
3.5
+-- - - - - - - - - - -- - -
25
2r-----------------------------1.5
0.5
Walking and bicycling appear to be safer in the urban core than in the inner or outer
suburbs. The rate of pedestrian fata lities does not directly correspond to the number of
people wa lking. Urban core residents are four to six times as li kely to walk to work as
outer jurisdiction residents, but are only twice as li kely to be ki lled in a pedestrian or
bicycle crash. And as previously noted, the urban core's fata lity
num bers probably include many non-resident workers and touri sts.
Hispanics are
T he urban core has good pedestrian faci li ties and low traffic speeds,
three times as
and drivers expect to see pedestrians and bicyclists.
There are large differences in the rates of hospital ization for
pedestrian injury by ethnicity.
The rate of hospitalization
per I 00,000 population for pedestrian injuries for Hispanics is
nearly three times as high as that fo r Whites, and
twice that for African-Americans. 5
Pedestrians
Find Safety
in Numbers
likely as Whites to
be hospitalized for
a Pedestrian
Injury
Northern Virginia Injury Prevention Prevention Center, !NOVA Regional Trauma Center (2005). Pedestrian
lnjwy in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region. Page 35.
3-4
Arlington, the area between Fairfax City and Fal ls Church in Fairfax County, and
Dumfries in Prince William County.6
The pedestrian crash rate tends to fa ll as the number of pedestrians at a location increases.
Doubling the number of pedestrians at an intersection already crowded with pedestrians
will usually result in little, if any, increase in pedestrian crashes.7 Si milar effects have
been noted for cyclists, with cities having the highest rates of bicycling also having the
lowest crash rate per bicycle trip.8 Areas are safer with more people walking and
bicycl ing, espec ially if fac ilities are improved and other measures are taken to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety. High levels of wa lking and bicycling are associated , in
advanced industrialized nations, with very low auto-involved crash rates.9 Holland has
half the overall traffic fatality rate of the United States, despite a very high walk and bike
mode share.
Experience of other nations shows that it is possible to reduce pedestrian and bicycle
fatal ities while increasing walking and bicycling. On the other hand, it is not possible to
eliminate pedestrian fata lities by e liminating pedestrian facilities and discouraging
walking; even in our least pedestrian-oriented jurisdictions, pedestrian fata lities account
for at least 10% of total traffic fatalities. For the foreseeable future there wi ll be people
without cars, and there will always be some trips that will be made on foot. The region s
most dangerous areas for walking have high-speed roads and poor pedestrian facilities,
together with people who lack automob iles.
Data from the Washington region indicate that drivers are about as likely as pedestrians
to be at fault in a crash. Drivers were cited for a vio lation in about half the crashes. 10
Males aged 25 to 34 are most likely to hit pedestrians, whi le pedestrians who are hit are
most likely to be males aged 25 to 44. Pedestrian crashes are most likely to occur at the
evening rush hour, 5-7 p.m., with 6-9 a.m. the second most likely. 11 Alcohol is a serious
problem for both pedestrians and motorists, affecting approximately one third of crashes.
2000.
10
II
3-5
Passing
cars
Turning
left
Bicycling
Two
Abreast
12
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Bicycle in the right most Jane
available for traffic, or as close
as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway,
except when turning left or
passing, avoiding pedestrians or
road hazards, or on a one-way
street. Does not apply in Janes
11 feet wide or Jess, or when
necessary to comply with Jane
use restrictions.
Pass on the left; may pass on
right when automobile is trying
left or when street is of
sufficient width for two lines of
moving vehicles.
Same as MD.
Same as MD.
3-6
VfRG!NlA
When slower than other traffic,
bike as close to the right as
safely practicable, except when
tuming left, passing, avoiding
hazards or traffic in mandatory
turn lane, or traveling on a oneway street. Does not apply in
Janes too narrow to share with
motor vehicle.
MARYLAND
Turning
right
Restricted
Roads
Cycling
on
Sidewalks
Mandatory
Use of
Bike Paths
and Lanes
Helmets
Lights
DISTRICT OF
COLUMB IA
Same as MD.
VIRGfNIA
Same as MD.
Not required
Pedestrians are not vehicle operators and are not subject to the same rules. Persons on
rollerblades, skateboards, etc. operating on the street are considered pedestrians, but
bicyclists are not. Motorists must yield to pedestrians when making turns across adjacent
crosswalks.
"Jaywalking" is legal in most locations, but pedestrians must yield to
motorists if they are crossing at a location other than a crosswalk. Pedestrians may not
cross at mid-block if they are between two signal-controlled intersections; they must use
the crosswalk. Tab les 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the rules in each state regarding
pedestrians.
3-7
Table 3-2:
Pedestrian Traffic Law-Motor Vehicles Drivers
MARYLAND
Crosswalk
Definition
Blocking
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Rjght Turn on
Red
Tum on Green
Red Light
Stop-Controlled
or Uncontrolled
intersection
13
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
VIRGINlA
Same as Maryland
3-8
Table 3-3:
Pedestrian Traffic Law-Pedestrians
MARYLAND
Green light
Red light
Pedestrian Control Signal
Stop-controlled or
uncontrolled intersection
Pedestrians on Roadways
(a)
If a pedestrian
crosses a roadway at any
point other than in a marked
crosswalk or in an unmarked
crosswalk
at
an
inter
the
section,
pedestrian shall yield the
right-of-way to any vehicle.
(b)
If
a
pedestrian
crosses a roadway at a point
where a pedestrian tunnel or
overhead pedestrian crossing
is provided, the pedestrian
shall yield right of way to any
vehicle.
(c)
Between
adjacent
intersections at which a
traffic control signal is 111
operation, a pedestrian may
cross a roadway only in a
marked crosswalk.
(d)
A pedestrian may
not
cross
a
roadway
intersection diagonally.
(a)
A pedestrian may
not walk on a roadway where
sidewalks are provided.
(b)
Where no sidewalk
3-9
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
Same as Maryland
VIRGINIA
Same as Maryland
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Enforcement and Education: The "Street Smart" Campaign
Pedestrian and bicycle safety efforts general ly fa ll into three broad categories of actions,
the three E's: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. Engineering deals with the
design of safer roads, streets, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Education includes
both classroom-based training and behavioral modification campaigns. Enforcement
consists of enforcement of the traffic laws with respect to pedestrians and bicyclists. The
regional pedestrian and bicycle safety campaign, Street Smart,
deals primarily with education through mass media.
Street Smart was created in 2002 by the region's governments
in response to an ongoing regional pedestrian and bicycle safety
problem. Since the region is a single media market, a unified
regional campaign is the most cost-effective approach. The
program is supported by federa l funds made available through
state governments, with local funds matching the federal funds,
and is administered by the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board.
The Street Smati campaign is a onemonth blitz of radio, transit, and print
advertising. The goal of the campaign
is to change driver and pedestrian
behavior in order to reduce deaths and injuries. Motorists are
urged to "Stop for Pedestrians" and " Watch for Bicyclists at
Intersections," and pedestrians are urged to "Look Before You
Cross." All materials, including radio spots, are translated into
Spanish. One-month campa igns were held in October, 2002,
and annually since 2004.
Efforts to enforce pedestrian laws have also been stepped up in
conjunction with the ''Street Smatt" pedestrian and bicycle
safety campaign. Law enforcement has helped reinforce the
campaign message, just as it has been used effectively as part of anti-drunk driving and
seatbe lt advertising campaigns. Public awareness of these heightened enforcement
activities has been a key aspect of this campaign. Research shows that fear of tines and
legal consequences is more effective at changing behavior than fear of death or injury.
Also the TV and press media often covers enforcement stings, increasing the public's
perception that they are likely to be ticketed for breaking the law.
3-10
Evaluation Results
Evaluation results show that the prime target audience, male
drivers aged 18 to 34, is hearing the message. For example,
surveys taken before and after the campaign of April, 2004
show that a\vareness of the Street Smart messages rose by 22
percentage points among male drivers aged 18 to 34. There is
some evidence that drivers are more likely to yield to
pedestrians, and that pedestrians are becoming more careful.
Spec ifica lly, in May 2005 :
17% of respondents reported that they " had to swerve to
avoid a pedestrian in the last 7 days", down from 32% in
2002
60% reported frequently observing motorists failing to yield
to pedestrians, down from 76% in 2002
Pedestrian and bicyc list fatalities in the Washington region
fe ll from 200 1-2004. The average fata lity rate for 1994-2004 was 87. Table 3-4
shows the pedestrian and bicyclist fata lities for the region from 2001-2004.
Table 3-4 14
2004
2002
2003
Year
~001
Fatalities
88
86
82
71
Outlook
Pedestrian and bicycle safety has drawn increasing attention in the Washington region
and at a ll levels of government. The Street Smatt campaign is yie lding positive results.
Better vehic le-pedestrian crash-compatibility, safer street design, retro-reflective
clothing, and safer pedestrian and driver behavior wi ll help reduce pedestrian and bicycle
fatalities and injuries.
On the other hand, as the region's population and density increase, including growing
numbers of immigrants and others for '"'hom walking and bicycli ng are a primary mode
of transportation, preventing pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries will remain a
maj or challenge.
14
District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Maryland Office of Highway Safety, Virginia DMV
3-11
Chapter 4
Existing Facilities for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
Overview
The Wash ington region has excellent long-distance separated facilities for bicyclists and
pedestrians, and an urban core and certain regional activity centers that have good
pedestrian and bicycle faci lities. On the other hand, many activity centers, not originally
designed w ith pedestrians in mind, have grown
dense enough to generate significant pedestrian
traffic, and face challenges in terms of providing
safe facilities and crossing locations for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Other parts of the region have
developed at low densities, with separated land
uses and indirect routes, wh ich increase pedestrian
and bicycle travel time. Pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations are not always provided.'
Pedestrians are found throughout the region, and pedestrian traffic is increasingly found
in places that were not built for it. This
section highlights some of the region's
successes in providing for bicycling and
walking. These successes can serve as
examples of what the region needs to
serve its pedestrians and bicyclists.
Shared-Use Paths 2
The Washington region is renowned for
the quality and extent of its major
shared-use paths. Shared-use paths are
typically located in their own right-of1
Photo of Informal Path, Southern Avenue, Prince George's County, MD: COG/TPB, Michael Farrell
Photo of Mt. Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA: COG/TPB , Michael Farrell
4- 1
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
Side-Paths3
Side-paths differ from shared-use paths in that they do not have their own right of way,
but are closely adjacent to a non-limited access roadway and thus subject to more
frequent conflict with driveways, side streets, and turning traffic. Side-paths differ from
sidewalks in that they must be at least eight feet wide and are designed to meet the needs
of bicyclists.
The Washington region has approximately 300
miles of side-paths, and there are plans to expand
that mileage considerably.
Side-paths meet the need for a separated pedestrian
facility and provide separation from traffic that is
valued by child and slow-moving cyclists, especially
in places where the road has speeds of 40 mph or
more and high traffic volumes.
However, the
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities offers a
number of cautions regarding the use of side-paths or wide sidewalks for bicycles.
Frequent driveways, especially with poor sightl ines, are hazardous to bicyclists on sidepaths. Side-paths remove bicycli sts from the motorists' line of sight and allow travel
against the flow of traffic, so they may increase the potential for conflicts with motor
vehicles at intersections. Since the fac ility is shared with pedestrians, there is also a
potential for cyclist-pedestrian crashes. Side-paths are most suitable where driveways
4-2
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
and intersections are few and sight-l ines are good. Intersection crossings should be
designed carefully, with a protected signal phase providing the best level of protection.
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes are marked lanes 4-6 feet w ide in the public right-of-way that are by law
exclusively or preferentially for use by bicycli sts. Bike lanes are marked with bicycle
symbo ls and a!1'ows, which indicate the correct direction of travel. Bike Janes are
provided on both sides of the street, except for one-way streets, and allow trave l only in
the same direction as adj acent motor veh ic le traffic. On-street bicycle lanes a re generally
much less expensive than separated paths. Bike lanes decrease wrong-way riding, define
the road space that cyclists are expected to use, increase cyclists' comfort level, and call
attention to the presence of cycli sts on the roadway. Bicycle lanes are not generally
considered safe or adequate for pedestrians, though in rural areas without sidewalks the
4
roadway shoulder serves as both a bicycle lane and as a pedestrian faci lity.
The number of bicycle lanes is growing rapidly.
The Di strict of Columbia currently has 19 miles of
bicycle lanes, up from three in 1995, Arlington
County has 20 miles, up from three in 1995, and
Montgomery County has 17 miles. 5 The regional
mileage of bicycle Janes can be expected to expand
significantly in the future as the District of
Columbia, Arlington County, and Montgomery
County al l have ambitious plans to build more
bicycle lanes. A map of regional bicycle paths,
lanes, and on-road routes can be ordered at www .adcmap.com.
Dual Facilities
In recognition of the fact that fast-moving cyclists may be better off with an on-road
faci lity, Montgomery County is pla nning many of its bicycle routes as dual fac ilities,
with both an on-road bike lane and a side-path for pedestrians and slow bicyclists.
VDOT's Northern Virginia Bikeway and Re~ional Trail Study recommends that both onand off-road accommodation be provided.
Under the new routine accommodation
po licy, VDOT is to prov ide adequate faci lities for pedestrians and bicyclists even if not
called for in the local plan.
4
4-3
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
Where bicycle and pedestrian volume wanant it, and right of way permits. multi-use
paths may be split into parallel pedestrian and bicycle paths. This separation allows
cyclists and rollerbladers to maintain speed without risk to pedestrians. The Washington
& Old Dominion Trail in Northern Virginia includes severa l sections with gravel
pedestrian paths that parallel the paved shared-use path.
Bridges
Currently the southernmost opportunity for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the Potomac
is at the 14th Street Bridge. When the Woodrow Wil son Bridge project is finished,
4-4
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
bicyclists and pedestrians will be able to cross the Potomac on the capital beltway at
Alexandr ia. The Memorial Bridge, the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, the Key Bridge, and
the Chain Bridge all have bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In the north, cycli sts and
pedestrians may use the fetTy at White' s Ferry, which connects Montgomery County and
Loudoun County. Cyclists may use the US 15 bridge at Po int of Rocks and the MD 17
bridge at Brunswick to get across Frederick County and Loudoun County, though they
have no separated faci lities.
On the Anacostia river separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities of uneven quality are
111
available on the South Capitol Street (Frederick Douglas Memorial) bridge, the 1J
Street bridge, the Pennsy lvania Avenue Bridge, the East Capitol Street Bridge, and the
Benning Road Bridge. The District of Columbia plans to upgrade these crossings as the
Anacostia waterfront is deve loped.
Rail
Bicycles are allowed on Metrorai l at any time except weekdays from 7 to 10 a.m. and
4 to 7 p.m., and the Fourth of July. No permit is required. On ly folding bicycles
fully enclosed in a carrying case are perm itted on MARC and VRE. Folding bicycles
are allowed on Metrorai l during ru sh hour if fully enclosed.
Bicycle racks or lockers are avai lab le at most Metrorail stations. Appendix r shows
the number of lockers and rack spaces at each metro station. As of April , 2006
WMA TA had 1,2 80 locker and I ,854 rack bicycle parking spaces at Metrorail
stations. 7 Racks are first-come, first served. 8
All VRE stations and most MARC stations have bicycle racks.
Bus
Bicycle Locker and Rack Survey: Existing Conditions and Planning for the Future. May 2006, WMATA.
Powerpoint presentation, posted under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subconm1ittee at w ww .mwco~ .o rg .
4-5
CHAPTER 4: EXISTING
FACILITIES FOR BICYLING
AND WALKING
Metrobuses al l have racks on the front that carry not more than two bicycles. No
pennit is required. Information on how to use bus bike racks is available at
\WW.waba.org. Fo lding bicycles are not allowed inside Metrobuses.
Montgomery County Ride-On, Arlington Transit, and Annapolis Transit buses are all
equipped with bicycle racks, as are many Maryland Transit Administration buses.
Outlook
Facilities for bicycling and wa lking in the Washington region are likely to improve
significantly in the future. Federal, regional, state and local policies and transit agency
initiatives all call for better and more complete facil ities. Bicycle lanes and dual fac ilities
for pedestrians and bicyclists will become more common.
4-6
Chapter 5
Best Practices
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
The TPB Vision calls for a transportation system that allows convenient and safe bicycle and
pedestrian access, with dynamic regional activity centers and an urban core that contain a mix of
jobs, housing and services in a walkable environment. In order to achieve these goals, the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee has developed the following series of recommended best
practices for consideration by the member jurisdictions. Many of the member jurisdictions have
already implemented some or all of these recommendations.
A.
111
all
l. Include bicycling and walking, including provisions for persons with disabil ities, in all
stages of the transportation and land use planning process, from initial concept through
implementation.'
3.
2.
Consistent with federa l policy, establ ish
bicycle and pedestrian ways in a ll new
construction and reconstruction transportation
projects in urbani zed areas unless one or more
of three conditions are met:
a.
Bicyclists and pedestrians are
prohibited by law from using the roadway. In
this instance, a greater effort may be necessary
to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians
elsewhere within the right of way or within the
same transportation corridor.
b.
c.
5-1
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
Encourage public participation by bicyclists and pedestrians and other commun ity
groups in the planning process.
5.
Ensure adequate funding for bicycle and pedestrian transportation staff and facilities,
including land acquisition, design, construction, and proper maintenance.
6.
a.
Require land developers to finance and construct sidewalks,
shared-use paths, and bicycle parking facilities within their
developments.
b.
Require land developers to design developments in a way
that facilitates internal and external bicycle and pedestrian access. New
development should feature a dense network of interconnected streets
to minimize trip distance and offer many low-speed, low-traffic routes.
Superblock and cul-de-sac development patterns should be
discouraged, and transit-oriented development should be encouraged.
7.
Design, construct, operate, and maintain sidewalks, shared-use paths, street crossings
(including over- and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture , transit
stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways so that all pedestrians, including
people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently.
8.
Improve inter-jurisdictional coordination to identify, construct and preserve multijurisdictional routes, and provide connecting links for existing routes to assure the
establishment of a continuous bicycle and pedestrian transportation system throughout
the Washington metropolitan area.
a.
Identify networks of existing bicycle routes (both on-street and off-street) in the urban
core, suburbs, developing fringe, as we ll as connecting long distance inter-city
routes . Ensure that these routes are included in land use and transp01tation plans,
and not eliminated as development occurs.
b.
Identify shared-use path corridors before they are developed, and preserve
opportunities for development as shared-use paths.
c.
Identify existing physical barriers to bicycling (such as rivers and streams, bridges,
railroad tracks, highway crossings, and limited access highways with no
crossing route) and identify solutions to overcome them.
5-2
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
B. Develop and adhere to consistent bicycle and pedestrian facility design and
construction standards in each jurisdiction:
1.
2.
4.
"Lessons Learned" fact sheet for Disabil ity Awareness Day. National Capital Region Transportation Planning
Board Access for All Committee, October 20, 2004.
5-3
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
a. Sidewalks should have curb ramps. Ramps should be well-maintained, wellplaced, and not too steep in order to pem1it their use by persons in wheelchairs. 3
b. The height of wheelchair users should be
considered when placing shrubs or other objects
where they might block them from the view of
motorists.
c. Objects such as security barriers, fences, fire 111M~
hydrants, telephone poles, parking meters,
newspaper boxes, signal control boxes, and other
street furn iture should be placed in locations
where they will not block curb ramps.
d. The placement of cross\valk buttons must take
into consideration the needs of people with
disabilities.
e. Audible pedestrian signals make communities
safer for al l pedestrians, including seniors and L::.._.=::=:.:~::::!::=::::::.=::::.:=..::::!:~E.:~
children as well as people with visual impairments.
Poorly Placed Curb
f. Sidewalks with steep slopes are difficult for people
Ramps and Rough
with disabilities to navigate, especially fo r people
Pavement can be
who use manual wheelchairs or people who have
Difficult to Navigate
trouble walking. Hand rails could help mitigate these
in a Wheelchair
difficulties.
1.
Improve
sidewalks,
bikeways,
intersections, signage and links to transit
for bicyclists and pedestrians in activity
centers
2.
a. Provide access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
b. Provide facilities
centers.
5-4
activity
centers
from
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
D.
I.
Provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists to all Metro and
commuter rail stations and park-and-ride lots.
2.
lmprove bicycle parking at Metro and commuter rail stations with well-designed
racks, covered racks, and lockers. Replace broken and obso lete bicycle racks
with current models. Investigate the possibility of improv ing commuter access
to bicycle lockers and increasing usage rates by establishing automated, hourly
renta l service.
3.
4.
5.
Provide for accommodation of bicycles on
future rail services in the Washington region.
E.
a. Construct bicycle parking facilities in welltraveled and lighted areas. Facilities should be covered
and secure.
Ensure the provision of showers and changing facilities m all new or renovated
commercial developments.
5-5
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
2. Provide bicycle parking on public property. Jurisdi ctions should install bicycle parking in
public spaces where there is demand , such as public libraries, parks, and sidewalks near
storefront reta il. 6
6
8
5-6
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
F.
Develop pedestria n and bicycle safety education and enforcement programs in all
jurisdictions.8
1. Promote pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs for children, beginning at the
earliest possible age.
a. Establish pedestrian and bicycle safety programs at the elementary school leve l,
including classroom and on-bicycle instruction.
b.
Develop and distribute pedestrian and bicycle safety information materials designed to
teach beginning cyclists and young pedestrians.
c.
Emphasize the use of bicycle helmets as a means of injury reduction, lights after dark,
reflectors, and reflective clothing for pedestrians.
2.
Improve cycling skills and pedestrian safety habits of adults and young adults.
a.
b.
3.
a.
b.
4.
5-7
5.
G.
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
a.
Emphasize the enforcement of traffic laws dealing w ith offenses known to cause
crashes bet\.veen bicycles and motor vehicles, such as wrong way bicycl ing, and
ignoring stop signs and stop lights.
b.
Emphasize enforcement of traffic laws dealing with offenses known to cause crashes
between pedestrians and motor vehicles, such as motorists failing to yie ld to
pedestrians, and pedestrians disobeying " Don ' t wa lk" signa ls.
6.
7.
Volunteer Patrols
can help with
Trail Security
Each jurisd iction shou ld develop a high visi bility bicycle or pedestrian project to
demonstrate t he effectiveness of bicycl ing a nd walking as a short d ista nce
transportation mode.
1.
2.
Each project should enjoy the full and enthusiastic support of the government agencies
respons ible for implementation.
3.
Extensive publicity and promotion should be provided fo r each facil ity or service
included in the project.
4.
5-8
H.
CHAPTER 5. BEST
PRACTICES
The TPB shall compile and report on best practices regarding wayfinding and signage
for bicyclists and pedestrians in the Washington region. This repoti sha ll be completed
no later than December, 2006. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee of the TPB
Techn ica l Committee shall explore the creation of pedestrian and bicycle signage and
wayfinding guidelines for the Washington region based on current best practices.
5-9
Chapter 6
The 2030 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Table 6-1:
Miles of Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
in the Washington Region
Facility Type
Bicycle Lane
Shared-Use Path
Total
Total
in
Planned
New
Facilities/Upgrades
Total
in
2005
56
490
546
223
461
684
2030
279
951
1230
Cost Estimates
The total cost of improvements listed in the plan is estimated at about $530 million (2006
dollars). Project-specific cost estimates have been provided by sponsoring agencies for
about 35% of the li stings (shown for these projects in Append ix A), tota ling about $190
million. Ofthe $ 190 mill ion in identified costs, $112 mi ll ion is included in the CLRP.
The remaining 65% of the projects, based upon a global cost per mi le or per facility
estimate, are projected to cost about $340 million. See Table 6-2 for costs imputed to
projects that had no sponsor cost estimate. Costs estimates for individual projects are not
provided because accurate estimates cannot be made at the project level with the
information available.
6- 1
Miles or Number of
Projects
with
No
Assigned Cost
291 miles
157 miles
6 projects
Imputed Cost
$291 ,000
$3,140
$18,000
50 projects
$25,000
1 project
$2,000
$339,140
figures 6-1 and 6-2 show the location of major bicycle and pedestrian projects
throughout the region. All pedestrian/ bicycle bridge or tunnel projects, multi-use paths
greater than three miles in length, and projects estimated by their sponsors to cost more
that $400,000 are mapped, except for area projects that cannot be mapped in a
meaningful way. About a quarter of the plan projects are mapped. Project details can be
found in the project list in Appendix A.
6-2
Figures 6-3 and 6-4 show the location of major bicycle and pedestrian projects that are
included in the CLRP or are funded.
Table 6-3 lists the mapped projects. Project numbers are sequential but not continuous
because not all projects are mapped.
6-3
Project Type
CLRP
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Parking
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Streetscape
Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path, Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path, Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Project
Number
66
71
74
75
80
107
112
120
131
133
134
138
140
142
144
148
150
156
158
159
160
162
164
167
168
170
180
182
183
184
187
190
193
195
197
198
200
202
207
208
223
224
225
229
Project Name
Project Type
CLRP
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path, Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path, Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian Intersection
Improvement
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Shared-Use Path
6-4
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Project
Number
234
264
234
235
242
260
298
308
312
313
357
322
324
325
335
337
339
340
341
346
347
348
349
352
353
Project Name
Project Type
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian Intersection
Improvement
Pedestrian Intersection
Improvement
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Shared-Use Path
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Streetscape/Pedestrian
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
6-5
CLRP
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
A
[~
Fig u re 6-1
Major* Bicyc l e
and Pedestrian Projects
Legend
Frederick Co.
~f/.;..:J
Water
- - Existing Facility
-
1346[+
Loudoun Co.
I
-=-=--c=::=J--
0 2 4
12
16
Miles
1312]+
1313]+
Fairfax Co.
Alexandria
Legend
W'i)J
Water
Major Highways
- - - Planned New Facility
--:::::::1--==-----=====:::i---Miles
- - - Existing Facility
Figure 6-3
Major * Bicycle
and Pedestrian Projects
Included 1n the CLRP
Legend
Frederick Co.
U~./)
Water
\
Loudoun c o.
' ~
0 2 4
12
16
Miles
KJII:l--====--
@]+(
Falls Church
1312+ 13131+
Fairfax Co.
1223r+
)+
Legend
Q:~?i!B
Water
TPB Planning Area
- - - Major Highways
Existing Facilities
- - - Planned New Facility
0
1
2
4
6
8
--=::~--==----c:::c:::c:::::::::.--- Miles
Appendices
Appendix A
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Of the Long-Range Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
For the National Capital Region
This appendix conta ins a complete list of the projects in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
for the National Capital Region. Below is a guide to the printed project li st. Append ix B
contains a data dictionary for the electronic database, which contains more information
than this printed list, as well as a sample data entry form.
Explanation
Line Number
Agency Project ID
Project Name
From
To
Length (Miles)
Responsible Agencies
Bike Lane
Multi-Use Path
Sidewalk
Type of Spot/Area
Improvement
In CLRP
In TIP
A- t
Field
Status
Cost
Explanation
The pull-down menu offers the following options:
Code Letter
1
1. Fully F unded
F
p
2. Partially Funded
c
3. Unfunded
uc
4. Under Construction
c
5. Complete*
In thousands of dollars. As many projects in the plan may not
be built for many years, and have not been fully scoped, this
can be a very rough estimate. If a project is part of a larger
project the total project cost is not listed, only that portion of
the cost which is attributable to the bicycle or pedestrian
faci lity. Use of a rule ofthumb for such estimates was
acceptable, i.e. 3% of total project cost. Many projects do not
have a cost estimate available.
*This database is mean to list planned fac ilities rather than existing facilities, but as time
passes many projects in it will be completed.
1
''Funded" indicates that the sponsoring agency has considered funding for completion of this project to be
reasonably available within projected funding sources. "Unfunded" indicates, that while the project has
been identified, there is no projected funding to support its completion at this time.
A-2
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Potomac River
Maryland
20
DDOT
0 ~
30
DDOT
21 0 0
Bicycle Lanes
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
Spoil In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1,000s)
~~
20,000
$600
DDOT
DOC
~ ~
$500
DDOT
DOD
$300
DDOT
on o
0 !ill u
$0
Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Loughboro Road, NW
DDOT
D ~
DO
$1 ,000
Union Station
Takoma Park
DDOT
~~
~~
20,000
D ~
D ~
$2,000
$1,500
$2,000
COT 01
--
--
DDOT
Southern Avenue
DDOT
D ~
DDOT
DO
D ~
p $2,500
10
Pedestrian Passageway/Tunnel
11
12
DDOT
DOD
c ~
$0
13
DDOT
DO 0
0 ~
$5,000
14
Sidewalk Construction
DDOT
DD
DO
$2,000
DDOT
DO 0
$600
DDOT
D ~
D ~
15
zuo
16
(Union Station}
Minnesota Ave
10-Jul-07
62nd Street, NE
~l
Washington , DC
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
F $2,500
Page 3
17
10-Jul-07
From
To
Paducah Road
Albion Road
Length
(Miles)
Responsible
Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
~ ~
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
D 0
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U = Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
ssoo
Page4
From
To
Bike
Side SpoV In
In
Lane Path walk Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1,000s)
Montgomery County
OPWT
on o
MOOT, M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
Cl lii1 LJ
DO
countywide
Montgomery County
DPWT
DOD
[.t,
so
countywide
Montgomery County
DPWT
uo
['
so
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 D
$0
Bethesda CBD
Montgomery County
DPWT
DU 0
RJ
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
~ 0
D [J
$0
DO
so
18
509325
Countywide
19
SP-76
Macarthur Blvd
20
507596
21
506747
22
SP-30
23
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Olney-Laytonsville Road
(MDI OS)
so
l. tl
so
24
BL-20
25
DB4
M-NCPPC,
~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
26
SP-19
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 ~
DO
27
BL-14
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
DO
so
28
SP-75
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
Ll
DO
$0
29
DB-18
MidCounty Highway
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County,
MOOT
DO
so
30
DB-17
Summit Avenue
M-NCPPC,
~~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 D
so
31
DB-9
MOOT, M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
D ~
DO
$0
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County, MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
so
Page 5
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Slalus
Cost
($1 ,000s)
Dt.J
$0
c ~
00
$0
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Montgomery County
DPWT, MTA
0 ~
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
Bike
Sicle
Lane Path walk
32
SP-66
33
SP-53
Gude Drive
34
SP-59
Wootton Parkway
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
35
DB-16
Seneca Road
MOOT, Montgomery
County, M-NCPPC
~~
DO
$0
36
SP-2
Democracy Boulevard
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
37
SP-38
MOOT, Montgomery
County, M-NCPPC
0 ~
[] 1.1
$0
38
SP-44
Montrose Road
Rollins Avenue
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
D b{! 0
DO
$0
39
SP-31
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
40
BL-7
Elm Street
Exeter Road
M-NCPPC.
Montgomery County
~ 0
$0
41
BL-25
Executive Boulevard
Montrose Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ :=I
DO
$0
42
BL-13
Randolph Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
$0
43
SP-18
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
- --0 0
$0
44
SP-1
MacArthur Boulevard
Wootton Parkway
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
$0
45
BL-31
Fieldcrest Road
Olney-Laytonsville Road
(MD108)
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
10-Jul-07
--
0 0
DO
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I =Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$0
Page6
From
To
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1,000s)
Montgomery County
OPWT
DOC
Q ';jj
so
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
46
509976
47
SP-13
Belvedere Place
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 till
DO
so
48
SP-64
GudeDrive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County,
MOOT
[J
DO
so
49
SP-72
MOOT, Montgomery
County, M-NCPPC
0 ~
DO
$0
50
SP-29
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
DO
$0
51
BL-22
Brookeville Bypass
MOOT, MCDPWT
~ D
DO
$0
52
SP-39
Brookeville Road
M-NCPPC,
D ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 0
$0
53
SP-67
M-NCPPC,
D ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
lJ LJ
$0
54
SP-24
Glenallen Avenue
Randolph Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
so
55
BL-1
MacArthur Boulevard
M-NCPPC,
~ D
Montgomery County,
MOOT
DU
so
56
SP-61
MidCounty Highway
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
D ~
0 D
so
57
SP-23
Robey Road
Montgomery County
OPWT, M-NCPPC
D ~
$0
58
SP-43
Grosvenor Connector
Beach Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
D~
DO
10-Jul-07
--
Metro station
- -----
Montgomery County, MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
$0
Page?
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP StaiUS
Cost
($1 ,000s)
r.;o
$0
0 ~
DO
MDOT, Montgomery ~ 0
County
DO
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
nn
$0
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 ~
DO
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT
DO D
D ~
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT. M-NCPPC
D ~
c ~
$0
M-NCPPC,
~ ~
Montgomery County,
MDOT
ou
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
D ~
DO
$0
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
S1de
Lane Path walk
From
To
59
SP-33
Cashell Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
::::J ~
60
SP-40
1-370 terminus
MDOT. M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
61
BL-18
62
DB-10
Lockwood Drive
63
SP-60
---
64 DB-1
MacArthur Boulevard
65
Alderton Lane
66
Georgia Avenue
---
so
so
67
SP-21
Layhill Road
68
DB-6
16th Street
East-West Highway
Montgomery County
DPWT
0 ~
DO
$0
69
--
70
SP-12
DC Line
Montgomery County
DPWT
D D
$0
71
SP-70
MidCounty Highway
ICC
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
D ~
DO
$0
72
SP-71
Middlebrook Road
MidCounty Highway
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
0 0
$0
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 8
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1,000s)
DO
$0
D b{] 0
DO
$0
D O
$0
~ 0
0 0
$0
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
0 0
$0
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
DC Line
1-495
MOOT, Montgomery 0 ~
County
DO
$0
Ednor Road
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
DO
$0
BL-11
Randolph Road
M-NCPPC,
~ 0
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 0
$0
83
DB-8
Ed nor Road
M-NCPPC,
~ 0
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 0
$0
84
DB-7
1-495
Lockwood Drive
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 0
$0
85
BL-27
Nebel Street
Twinbrook Parkway
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
~ 0
DO
$0
0 ~
73
SP-50
Montrose RoadfParkway
Falls Road
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
74
SP-62
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
75
SP-28
Woodfield Road
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
Montgomery County,
MOOT
76
BL-26
Randolph Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
77
DB-13
Nicholson Lane
78
SP-47
Randolph Road
Chapman A~enue
79
DB-14
Needwood Road
Redland Road
80
SP-11
81
SP-15
82
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F = Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 9
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
86
DB-12
LayhiiiRoad
87
SP-41
Cedar Lane
88
509922
89
SP-3
90
BL-21
91
Cost
($1 ,000s)
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Atea ClRP TIP Status
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 [;') 0
DO
$0
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ ~
D O uc
$0
Montgomery County
OPWT
$0
Battery Lane
Cedar ..ane
Montgomery County
OPWT
0 ~
DO
$0
Norwood Road
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
~ 0
0 0
$0
SP-5
MacArthur Boulevard
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~ 0
DO
$0
92
SP-69
Observation Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
0 0
so
93
SP-73
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
94
509953
E. Randolph Road
MD 198
Montgomery County
DPWT
DO 0
~ ~
$0
95
SP-36
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
0 D
$0
96
SP-37
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County,
MOOT
DO
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT
DO 0
DO
so
97
[;'] 0
98
SP-56
Dames:own Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
DO
$0
99
SP-58
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
D O
$0
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 10
From
To
--
--
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
---
--
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
0 D
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1 ,000s)
0 D
$0
--
100 BL-15
Parklawn Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
101 SP-26
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
102 SP-25
Parklawn Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 b!l 0
0 0
$0
103 BL-29
Needwood Road
M-NCPPC,
rvlontgomery County
~ 0
DO
$0
104 SP-54
Needwood Road
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 ~
DO
$0
105 SP-65
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
u ~ [l
DO
$0
106 BL-34
Riffleford Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
DO
$0
107 DB-2
DC line
13
M-NCPPC,
0 ~
rvlontgomery County,
MOOT
DO
so
108 SP-14
Semirary Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
0 0
$0
109 SP-48
Democracy Boulevard
Tuckerman Lane
M-NCPPC,
rvlontgomery County
~ ~
DO
so
110 SP-49
Halpine Road
M-NCPPC.
Montgomery County
0 blJ 0
0 LJ
$0
111 BL-33
Seneca Road
M-NCPPC,
rvlontgomery County
~ 0
D O
$0
112 DB-3
Wootton Parkway
MacMhur Boulevard
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 Rl 0
DO
$0
113 BL-30
M-NCPPC,
rvlontgomery County
~ n
DO
--
--
--
--
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
uc
$0
Page 11
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Alea CLRP TIP S1a1us
Cost
($1 ,000s)
$0
~~
DO
~ 0
0 ~
MDOT, Montgomery 0 ~
County
so
Hounds Way
M-NCPPC.
Montgomery County
~ D
0 0
so
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
~ D
[J
$0
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
~ D
0 0
$0
University Boulevard
Georgia Avenue
MDOT. Montgomery
County, M-NCPPC
0 ~
0 0
$0
121 BL-16
Twinbrook Parkway
M-NCPPC.
~ D
Montgomery County,
MOOT
D 0
$0
122 SP-74
MidCounty Highway
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
c ~
DO
$0
123 SP-10
Spring Street
Montgomery County
DPWT, M-NCPPC
0 ~
DO
$0
124 SP-4
Beach Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
D ~
DO
$0
125 SP-7
Western Avenue
River Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
0 ~
DO
$0
126 BL-4
Rockledge Drive
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
DO
$0
127 BL-8
Wisconsin Avenue
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ D
D O
$0
114 DB-15
Darnestown Road
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
115 509975
Montgomery County
DPWT
116 SP-20
117 BL-24
nlden Lane
Nicholson Lane
118 SP-42
Tuckerman Lane
119 BL-28
Twinbrook Parkway
120 DB-5
--
-- - - -
- -
Montgomery County , MD
10-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I =Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U = Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Page 12
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
B<ke
Side
Lane Palh walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP SlaiUS
Cost
($1,0005)
128 BL-2
MacArthur Boulevard
Elmore Lane
M-NCPPC,
~ 0
Montgomery County,
MOOT
0 0
$0
129 SP-8
Bradley Lane
Oliver Lane
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
~ 0
0 0
$0
130 BL-6
Woodmont Avenue
Bethesda Avenue
Battery Lane
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
ii1 0 0
0 0
$0
10-Jul-07
Montgomery County , MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Page 13
--
131
--
Addison Road
--
--
--
From
--
To
--
MD214
--
--
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
--
--
Boke
Sde
Lane Palh walk
--
--
Prince Georges
County
0 LJ
0 0
LJ 0
DO
--
--
Spoil In
In
Area CLRP TIP Slalus
Cost
($1 ,000s)
p $2,343
132
Allentown Road
MD5
Prince Georges
County
133
Bladensburg Marina
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
134
Aulh Road
MD 5 (Branch Avenue)
Prince Georges
County
135
Bock Road
Uvingston Road
Tucker Road
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
D O
136
Brinkley Road
Allentown Road
Prince Georges
County
~ [J
0 0
137
MD214
Cheverly Metro
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
DO
$260
Western Branch
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
DO
$1,350
139
MD 214
Capital Beltway
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
D O
140
Capital Beltway
Upper Marlboro
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
D ~
DO
$1,080
141
MD704
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County, City
of Seat Pleasant
:::J
DO
$200
142
MD214
Upper Marlboro
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
DO
p 52,000
143
Washington D.C.
14
MOOT, M-NCPPC,
Prince Georges
County
Rl 0
0 D
$0
144
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
- - --
DO
ssoo
Rl 0
0 0
$450
- - -
138
10-Jul-07
--
-0 ~
$650
0 0
B==Bridge or Tunnel C ==Complete F == Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK == Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$1 ,000
Page 14
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1,000s)
145
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
D O
146
MD210
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
DO
147
MD 193
M0201
Prince Georges
County
b{]
0 0
DO
148
Brinkley Road
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 &lJ 0
0 0
149
Uvingston Road
MD210
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
DO
150
MD 193
MD564
MOOT
~ ~
DO
$0
151
Mitchellville Road
us 301
Prince Georges
County
0 ~
n--
D O
$300
152
MD210
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
DO
153
MD 210
Livingston Road
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
DO
154
MOOT
~ 0
DO
~NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
DO
DO
n o
0 D
--
MD 210
--Cherry Hill Road
--
--
--
155
156
Potomac River
11
M-NCPPC, Prince
D ~
Georges County,
National Park Service
157
Piscataway
Prince Georges
County, OPW&T
!i1
158
Chillum Road
Gallatin Street
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
D ~
D O
159
Capital Beltway
Prince Georges
County
0 ~
D O
10-Jul-07
$1,367
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$350
$250
p
$2,300
$0
$400
$1,100
Page 15
351
352
353
10-Jul-07
From
N. Lynn St
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
To
Ft. fv1yer Dr
Bike
Side
l ane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
--
0 0 0
s 0 0
Arlington County,
VDOT
DO 0
0 0 0
0 0
$1,000
0 0
Cost
($1,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Page 47
--
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
- --
Bike
Sode
Lane Path walk
---
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Stalus
s bll D
349 00060040
Potomac Avenue
CSX Railroad
Potomac River
VDOT , Town of
Quantico
DO 0
350 00017600
Potomac River
VDOT Town of
Quantico
DO U s 0
10-Jul-07
Town of Quantico , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
$871
uc
$512
Page46
348 00056458
Riverfront Boardwalk
10-Jul-07
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT , Town of
Occoquan
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
LJD 0
s 0 0 uc
Town of Occoquan, VA
Key to
Codes
B==Bridge or Tunnel C == Complete F == Fully Funded I == Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P = Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Cost
($1 ,000s)
$546
Page 45
10-Jul-07
To
From
Town of Lovettsville
Length
(Miles)
---6
Responsible
Agencies
VOOT , Town of
Lovettsville
Bike
Side
Lane Palh walk
o ~
SpoV In
In
Area ClRP TIP Status
no
Town of Lovettsville , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s}
$4so
Page 44
From
To
Town of Hillsboro
On 704
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
D D D s D D
Town of Hillsboro, VA
1 0-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
F $2,482
Page 43
345 00063581
Main Street
10-Jul-07
From
To
--
Town of Hamilton
(Improvements)
Length Responsible
(Miles} Agencies
VOOT . Town of
Hamilton
$JCie
l ane Path walk
Bike
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
DO 0 s
Town of Hamilton , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Cost
($1 ,000S}
$47
Page 42
10-Jul-07
From
To
Town of Clifton
- Phase II
Length
{Miles)
Responsible
Agencies
VDOT
S.ke
Side SpoV In
In
lane Path walk Area ClRP TIP Status
0 0 0
Town of Clifton , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
UC
Cost
($1 ,000s)
S70
Page 41
From
To
Purceville
-----
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
-343 71734
10-Jul-07
Main Street
W&ODTrail
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
VDOT
DO 0
s 0 0
$500
VDOT
0 21 0
$460
Purceville , VA
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 40
From
To
~ 0
$650
~ 0
$515
~ 0
uc
o
n
$3,000
$1,161
VDOT
DO 0
VDOT
0 ~
VDOT
c ~
VDOT
n ~
337 71721
338 71758
Godwin Driv:!
339 14932
Glenkirk Road
Devlin Road
$649
DO 0
PWParkway
--
[]
10-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1,000S)
uc
VDOT
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
[]
341 00050009
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
VDOT
336 72726
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 39
10-Jul-07
From
To
Davis Road
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
Spot/ In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
0 uc
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
$6,181
Page 38
333
From
To
District Wide
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
VDOT
DO 0
VDOT
0 0 0
Spoil In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
n
B
0 0
District-w ide, VA
10-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
P $9,000
Page 37
332 00018782
10-Jul-07
To
From
Length
(Miles)
----
Responsible
Agencies
VDOT
Bike
Side
0 0 0
SpoV
In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
City of Manassas , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
uc
Cost
($1,000s)
$557
Page 36
331 00056456
10-Jul-07
From
To
Andrew Drive
Euclid Avenue
Length
(Miles)
Responsible
Agencies
VDOT , City of
Manassas Park.
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
0 0 0
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
uc
Cost
($1 ,000s)
$195
Page 35
From
To
Pickett Roao
Daniel's Run
330 16632
@US 50
Bike
Sode
Lane Path walk
Cost
($1,000S)
--uc $1,762
In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
$pol/
---
- ---
329 00016090
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT , City of
Fairfax
D ~
VDOT . City of
Fairfax
DO D
B ~
City of Fairfax , VA
10-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 34
328
10-Jul-07
From
To
Md State Line
Telegraph Road
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT
Bike
Side
lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
uc
Page 33
US 50 widening
10-Jul-07
From
To
Lee Road
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
VDOT
Bike
S ide
0 ~
SpoU
In
Cost
In
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
($1 ,000s)
Page 32
--
From
To
--
--
--
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
--
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
--
SpoU In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
ROUTE 7
VDOT
0 ~ ~
f]
VDOT
0 ~ ~
VDOT
li{J
~ u
323 70760
AUTOWORLD DRIVE
(NORTHERN TERMINUS
SEVERN WAY
VDOT
[]
324 00063583
VA 28
us 7
VDOT , Loudoun
County
0 0
[J
325 00056454
Round Hill
VDOT , Loudoun
County
0 ~
326
W&OD
VDOT , Northern
~ 0
Virginia Regional Park
320 18992
321 58922
322 13096
--
---
KINCAID BOULEVARD
--
[]
~ LJ
$53
RI D
S1,700
0 0
Loudoun County , VA
Key to
Codes
uc
.
-
10-Jul-07
Cost
($1 ,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 31
319 00052449
10-Jul-07
From
To
W&ODTrail
Length
(Miles)
Responsible
Agencies
VDOT , Town of
Herndon
Bike
S.de
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Herndon , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Cost
($1,000s)
$931
Page 30
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
306 XL
307 70632
308 72295
Trap Road
Beulah Road
309 70602
Tysons Corner
Pedestrian Improvements
Identified by
310 XL
Spoil In
In
Area ClRP TIP Stalus
Fairfax County
0 0 Ll
DO
VDOT , Fairfax
County
DO 0
s 0
[]
$1 ,600
VDOT
DO ~
$2,242
VDOT , Fairfax
County
0 0 C' s
~ 0
$300
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
- ..
0
Cost
($1 ,000s)
Bike
Stele
Lane Path walk
---
~ [J
l'tJ
311 11395
US 29 Widening
ROUTE l-495
VDOT , Fairfax
312 56780
VA 7
VDOT , Fairfax
County
D O 0
313 56866
US 50 Pedestrian Bridge
VDOT , Fairfax
County
D O 0
314 00052041
lnnsbruck Road
VDOT , Fairfax
County
c ~
315 XL
Walker Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
316 XL
Walker Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
n n
317 00052042
Columbine Street
VDOT , Fairfax
County
~ 0
318 16504
Ox Trail Road
Lawyers Road
VDOT
0 ~
RJ O uc
RJ O
$601
F $5,000
uc
$1,468
uc
$447
10-Jul-07
Fairfax County , VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Page 29
--
--
From
To
--
--
286 XL
Richmond Highway
287 XL
Richmond Highway
Lockheed Boulevard
--
--
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
--
Fairfax County
Fairfax County
--
--
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
--
DO 0
--
Richmond Highway
Fordson Road
Fairfax County
289 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
290 XL
Richmond Highway
Sacramento Drive
Fairfax County
DO 0
291 XL
Richmond Highway
Popkins Lane
Fairfax County
--
OU
I
D D 0
DO
--
D 0
0 0
--
DO
DO
--
Richmond Highway
Lukens Lane
Fairfax County
DO 0
293 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
u 0
294 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
295 XL
Richmond Highway
Ladson Lane
Fairfax County
DO 0
296 XL
Richmond Highway
Quander Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
297 XL
Richmond Highway
Frye Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0 0
~~
298
299 XL
300 52327
Route 7 Widening
--
301 XL
--
---
Stringfellow Road
--
TycoRoad
DO
DO
DO
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
VDOT
0 ~
~ 0
Fairfax County
D ~
Plaza America
Fairfax County
DO 0
s DO
3m XL
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
10-Jul-07
--
--
----
--
Fairfax County, VA
Key to
Codes
Plaza America
$8,000
302 XL
---304 XL
Sunset Hills Road
-305 XL
Sunset Hills Road
--
--
D 0
292 XL
Cost
($1 ,ODDs)
--
0 0 L.J
288 XL
--
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 28
From
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
To
Bike
$ode
lane Path walk
In
In
Area ClRP TIP Status
SpoV
265 00063577
Phase I
VDOT , Fairfax
County
266 XL
Shiplett Boulevard
Fairfax County
0 D 0
DO
267 XL
Sydenstricker Road
Fairfax County
0 0 D
00
268 T1116
Bike Projects
0 D 0
269 XL
Reston Parkway
Fairfax County
DOC
270 XL
Richmond Highway
Napper Road
Fairfax County
DOD
271 XL
Richmond Highway
Kings Highway
Fairfax County
0 D 0
272 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 IJ
uo
273 XL
Richmond Highway
Dart Drive
Fairfax County
D 0 D
DO
274 XL
Richmond Highway
Sacramento Drive
Fairfax County
DO 0
275 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
276 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
277 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 D
DO
278 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 0
279 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 D
DO
280 XL
Richmond Highway
Kings Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
281 XL
Richmond Highway
Arlington Drive
Fairfax County
DO 0
282 XL
Richmond Highway
Mohawk Lane
Fairfax County
DO 0
283 XL
Richmond Highway
Backlick Road
Fairfax County
0 0 0
284 XL
Richmond Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 D
285 XL
Richmond Highway
Southgate Drive
Fairfax County
0 0 [l
Fairfax Cou1ty
---
10-Jul-07
~ 0
cJ
D
I
r.,]
$303
$0
00
DO
0 D
-I
DO
no
DO
DO
DO
00
DO
Fairfax County , VA
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R =Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 27
Lee-Jackson Highway
-- --
From
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
To
Bike
Side
lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Stringfellow Road
- -- -
Fairfax County
DO 0
I_;
---
247 XL
Leesburg Pike
Dranesville Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
248 XL
Leesburg Pike
Fairfax County
~0
uu
249 XL
Leesburg Pike
Magarity Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
250 XL
Leesburg Pike
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
251 XL
Leesburg Pike
Patterson Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
Fairfax County
D O 0
DO
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
Fairfax County
D O 0
D O
Fairfax County
0 ~ ~
Fairfax County
DO 0
Fairfax County
DOD
252 XL
Leesburg Pike
-253 XL
Leesburg Pike
254 XL
Leesburg Pike
255 XL
Leesburg Pike
256 XL
Leesburg Pike
Baron Cameron
Avenue/Springvale Road
257 XL
Lewinsville Road
DO
0 0
0 0
Braddock Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
Backlick Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
260 63717
Oasis Drive
VDOT , Fairfax
County
DO 0
~ J
261 XL
Loisdale Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
262 98
us 1
VDOT
21 0
263 XL
Fairfax County
DO
264 XL
Huntington Metro
Fairfax County
D O 0
DO
258 XL
259 XL
--
10-Jul-07
Beauregard
Route 748
Fairfax County , VA
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1 ,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$1,318
uc
Page 26
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side Spoil In
In
Alea ClRP TIP Status
227 XL
Fairfax County
0 0 0
0 LI
228 XL
Fairfax County
DO
229 57167
123
VDOT , Fairfax
County
on n
0 blJ u
230 XL
Gallows Road
Fairfax County
231 XL
Georgetown Pike
Fairfax County
232 XL
Georgetown Pike
lnnsbruck Road
Fairfax County
0 0 0
DO 0
-DO 0
233 XL
Georgetown Pike
Applewood Lane
Seneca Roa:l
Fairfax County
0 D D
DO
[JO
234 60337
1-495
Route 7
VDOT
~~
235
Crutchfeild Street
Hutchinson Street
0 0 rJ
236 XL
Fairfax County
DOD
237 XL
DOC
00
238 XL
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
239 70736
Pedestrian Improvements
0 0 0
~ 0
240 XL
241 XL
Lee Highway
Gallows Road
DO 0
242 XL
Lee Highway
Fairfax County
DO 0
243 XL
Lee Highway
Monument Drive
Fairfax County
0 0 0
uu
244 XL
Lee-Jackson Highway
Majestic Lane
Fairfax County
0 D LJ
245 XL
Lee-Jackson Highway
Fairfax County
0 0 0
DO
DO
~ n
Cost
($1,000s)
DO
Rl~
$845
DO uc
DO
$596
--
$174
----
DO
[l
10-Jul-07
DO
DO
Fairfax County, VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Page 25
From
To
Wakefield Park
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
VDOT , Fairfax
County
0 ~
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
DO 0
210 XL
Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
211 XL
Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax County
0 0 0
~~
212 XL
Arlington Boulevard
Graham Road
Fairfax County
DO D
DO
213 58601
Jaguar Trail
VDOT
DO 0
~ 0
214 XL
Braddock Road
Guinea Road
Fairfax County
DO D
DO
215 XL
Braddock Road
Rolling Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
216 XL
Braddock Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
217 XL
Roberts Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
218 XL
Centreville Road
Compton Road
DO 0
0 0
219 XL
Centreville Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
220 XL
Centreville Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
-221 XL
Centreville Road
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
222 XL
International Drive
Fairfax County
DO 0
DO
223 UPC5010
Columbia Pike
Powell Lane
Homes Run
224 00063578
VDOT , Fairfax
0 ~
County Park Authority
225 XL
Danbury Forest
DO 0
DO
226 XL
Fairfax County
DO 0
0 0
10-Jul-07
0 0
$2,619
$1,797
$1 ,106
DO
~ 0
Fairfax County, VA
Key to
Codes
~ ~
209 XL
Seven Corners
Cost
($1 ,OOOs)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$1,060
Page 24
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
--
S.ke
$ode
Cost
($1 ,000s)
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
CD
$200
196 k
Queen Street
Braddock Road
City of Alexandria
DO 0
197 a
N. Chambliss St
City of Alexandria
DO 0
$400
198 d
Cameron Station
City of Alexandria
DOD
b{j L,
$500
199 b
Duke Street
Carlyle Avenue
City of Alexandria
DO 0
[l
$195
200 e
Telegraph R)ad
City of Alexandria
D ~
~ bl,
$835
201 f
City of Alexandria
DO 0
$250
[l
F $2,000
Holmes Run
1-395
202 j
28th Street
City of Alexandria,
VDOT
DO 0
203 h
Glebe Road
City of Alexandria
D O 0
s 0 0
City of Alexandria,
VDOT
D ~
D D
City of Alex;mrlri<l,
DO
[;[]
$750
$938
~ ~
uc
24,400
204 g
205 m
Citywide
Citywide
--
VDOT
206 c
citywide
citywide
City of Alexandria,
VDOT
DO ~
207 i
City of Alexandria
~~
10-Jul-07
City of Alexandria, VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$350
Page 23
195
10-Jul-07
From
To
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Beltway
.k
.
S1de
B1 e
Lane Palh walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
Cost
($1 ,000s)
Page 22
From
To
---
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Sode
Lane Path wajk
190
N. Randolph Street
Fairfax Drive
Arlington County,
Arlington Co. DPW
DOD
191
VA 120
Arlington County,
Arlington Co. DPW
192 BK88
Arlington Blvd
Walter Reed
193 BK94
Walter Reed Dr
S. Rolfe St.
194
10-Jul-07
SpoV In
In
Area ClRP TIP Status
u ~
$1,000
DO 0
0 D
$100
M ington County,
VDOT
DO 0
00
$350
Arlington County
0 ~
on
$1 ,000
Arlington County
DO 0
DO
Arlington County , VA
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1 ,000s)
B=Bridge or Tunnel C Complete F Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$60
Page 21
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
From
To
N. Meade Street
Bike
Sode
Lane Palh walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1 ,000s)
Arlington County,
Arlington County
0 ~
[1
$350
Arlington County,
Arlington County
0 ~
DO
$120
Arlington County,
VDOT
0 ~
on
177 BK01
23
Arlington County
~ 0
0 0
178 BK59
Arlington County
DO 0
179 BK93
Arlington County
DO 0
0 0
180
Arlington County,
Arlington Co. DPW
D O 0
181
Arlington County
0 0 0
182 BK39
Arlington County,
VDOT
0 ~
183 BK29
Arlington County,
VDOT
DO 0
184
C 0 0
185
Pedestrian Improvements
Arlington County,
Arlington Co. DPW
DO 0
186
Arlington County
DO 0
174
Fairfax Drive
175
176 BK87
--
Shirlington Rd
West Glebe Rj
$60
$120
$75
0 ~
$130
$1 ,000
DO
$400
DO
$2,000
DO
$1,000
. --
in Ballston
;:JD
D[l
$500
DO
$350
y-
187 BK91
188
Sidewalk Projects
189 00062146
Memorial Dr
Washington Blvd
Arlington County,
0 ~
National Park Service
Arlington County,
VDOT
DO
Arlington County,
Arlington County
DO 0
-DO
$500
DO
$1 ,000
10-Jul-07
@ 27th Street
~I
Arlington County, VA
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$100
Page 20
10-Jul-07
From
DC Line
To
Piney Branch Road
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
M-NCPPC,
Montgomery County
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
Cost
($1 ,000s)
DO 0
0 D
$0
Takoma Park, MD
Key to
Codes
B=Bridge or Tunnel C =Complete F =Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 =Other P =Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
Page 19
From
To
169 9C61
170 3E60
171 4871
Pedestrian Safety
Citywide project
Darnestown Road
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
Bike
Side
Lane Palh walk
City of Rockville
DO rJ
City of Rockville,
Maryland State
Highway
Administration
O bl.
City of Rockville
10-Jul-07
City of Rockville
[j
$1 ,057
F $4,714
D O 0
D D
p $1,598
O[J D
0 0
Rockville , MD
Key to
Codes
Cost
($1,000s)
0 0
172 6821
SpoV in
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
$370
Page 18
168
10-Jul-07
From
To
Virgin a
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
MDOT
Bike
Side
Lane Path walk
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
o s
B=Bridge or Tunnel C = Complete F = Fully Funded I = Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK =Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S =Streetscape U =Unfunded UC =Under Construction
uc
Cost
($1 ,000s)
so
Page 17
-160
--
--
Length Responsible
(Miles) Agencies
61ke
Side
Lane Path walk
From
To
Washington D.C.
MD4
--
--
--
--
-D
SpoV In
In
Area CLRP TIP Status
-- - - -
-D u
Cost
($1 ,000s)
--
$0
161
Piscataway Road
Prince Georges
County
~ 0
D 0
162
MD5
Piscataway Creek
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
D ~
DO
163
Tucker Road
Allentown Road
Prince Georges
County
RJ O 0
O[J
164
us 1
Sunnyside Avenue
Conlee Road
MOOT
~I ~
DO
$1,000
so
$1 ,600
--
--
--
--
165
US 1 (College Park)
Sunnyside Avenue
Albion Road
MDOT
~~
DO
166
WB&A Trail
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 ~
DO
167
Lottsford Road
Upper Marlboro
10
M-NCPPC, Prince
Georges County
0 !i1 0
DO
10-Jul-07
Key to
Codes
B=B ridge or Tunnel C = Complete F =Fully Funded I= Intersection Improvement 0 = Other P = Partially Funded
PK = Bicycle Parking R = Bicycle Route Marking S = Streetscape U = Unfunded UC = Under Construction
S3, 100
Page 16
Appendix B
Data Dictionary and Sample Database Entry Form
For the Regional Database of Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the Long-Range
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region
FIELD
COG Project ID
Agency Project TO
Project Name
From
To
Length of Project
Jurisdiction(s)
State
Agency
Secondary Agency
Cost
EXPLANATION
COG's internal identifying number for the project in this
database
The responsible agency 's project identifying number
Descriptive name provided by the sponsoring agency
Project Limits
Project Limits
Length of the project from start to finish. Example: if a
project consists of four miles of road with a continuous bike
lane and sidewalk, the project length is four miles.
Jurisdiction(s) in which the proj ect is located
State or States in which the project is located.
Lead agency that is responsible for implementing the project
Other agency involved in the proiect
In thousands of dollars. As many projects in the plan may not
be built for many years, and have not been fully seeped, this
can be a very rough estimate. If a project is part of a larger
project the total project cost is not listed, only that portion of
the cost which is attributable to the bicycle or pedestrian
facility. Use of a rule ofthumb for such estimates was
acceptable, i.e. 3% of total project cost. Many projects do not
have a cost estimate available.
lfthe project has a web site, or if the agency has more detail
on its web site, the URL may be listed.
If the project has a project manager, his or her name may be
listed.
B-1
Length of Sidewalk
Type of Spot/Area
Improvement
Path Alignment
Status
"Funded" indicates that the sponsoring agency has considered funding for completion of this project to be
reasonably available within projected funding sources. "Unfunded" indicates, that while the project has
been identified, there is no projected funding to suppott its completion at this time.
B-2
B-3
- Search
- Results List All
Log Out
COG Project ID 167967369
Agency Project
ID
Project Name
From
To
Length of
Project
Union Slation
I
I
Takoma Park
(miles)
Description
Jurisdiction(s)
Washington
State
Agency
DC
o::J
DDOT
Secondary
Agency
Cost
$r 20000
(In Thousands)
www .metbranchtrail.com
B-4
Statio~
Project
Manager's
Name
Chris t-blben
Project
Manager's
Phone
Project
Manager's
Email
chris.holben@dc.gov
Project Is In II':"
the CLRP ~ Yes
r
u
No
Corresponding
CLRP Project ID
Project Is In II':"
the TIP ~ Yes
No
No
Corresponding
TIP Project ID
Project Is Part
of a Larger
Project
Length of Bike
Lane
Length ~!eM~~~i~
Yes
12
(miles)
rs--
Length of r Sidewalk I
(miles)
(miles)
Type of
Spot/ Area
Improvement
::.:J
:::::J
Path Alignment
Status
j Partially Funded
Year of
Completion or
Implementation
2009
Project Within E
C
a Regional Yes
No Information on Regional
Activity Center Activity Centers
Project Is
Between
Regional
8 -5
Yes
No
Activity Centers
Maintenance
Yes E No
Project
Connects To a
Transit Facility
E Yes
No
BikeNetConnect
E Yes
No
Pedestrian
Safety Project
Yes E No
Project Is In
Local Plan
E Yes
No
Project
Identified as a
2005 Regional
Priority
E Yes
No
Comments
Record Last
Modified On
t..,pdate
Delete
Back To Re!uKs
B-6
_Beset
Appendix C
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
In the 2005 CLRP
From
To
Complete In
District of Columbia
District-wide Bicycle Management Program
Watts Branch
Upper Rock Creek Trail Study
Union Station Bike Station
Oxon Run Trail Restoration
Farragut Station Pedestrian Tunnel
National Recreational Trails
Kingman Island Trail Construction
Rock Creek Park Trail
Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
Rose Park
Metropolitan Branch Trail
East Entrance Foggy Bottom
Cultural/Heritage Trail System
2010
Two island in the Anacostia River south {downstream) Benning Road in Ward 7
Benning Road to Naval Yard {West Side of River)
2007
2006
2007
2007
2012
2005
2007
2012
2009
2007
2007
Citywide
$800
$400
$1,000
$500
$500
$100
$180
$600
$2,000
$14,400
$300
$12,500
$100
$400
Maryland
North Bethsda Trail Bridges
Old Columbia Pike
Annual Bikeway Program
Forest Glen Pedestrian Bridges
North Bethesda Trail
Mathew Henson Trail
Metropolitan Branch Trail
Silver Spring Green Trail
Pedestrian Safety Program
Annual Sidewalk Program
Greentree Road Sidewalk
Shady Grove Access Bike Path
US 29 Sidewalks
Bethesda Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities
MD 198
2004
2005
2006
2005
2007
2007
2007
Fernwood Road
Redland Road
New Hampshire Avenue
2009
2008
2006
2008
$5,313
$2,847
$2,944
$7,709
$1,470
$4,570
$5,300
$6,060
$1,200
$7.800
$1,788
$2,714
$3,820
$3,340
N. Meade Street
City-wide
Patrick Henry Drive
2025
2007
2025
$735
$938
$2.800
2015
2025
$3,600
$1,800
$158
Virginia
Arlington Boulevard Ped and Bike Trail
Sidewalk Construction
Route 50 Pedestrian Improvements
Sidewalks and Trails
VA 123 Bike Path
W&OD Trail Extension
Pedestrian/Bicyde Plaza & Pathways - Phase II
Manassas Drive
Ped and Bike Improvements
Fairway Court
Facility
From
Sycamore Street
VA 237 (Washington Blvd.)
Pedestrian Bridge over CSX Railroad
@ Veterans Memorial Park
Wilson Blvd.
10th St. Pedestrian Facilities
Near Cameron Station
Duke Street Ped Bridge
City of Alexandria
Bike and Ped Trails and Sidewalks
Metro Station (King Street)
City of Alexandria
Trails/Sidewalks
County-wide
Purcellville Multi-Purpose Trail
Main Street
W&ODTrail
Sugarland Run Trail
Courthouse Metro Station
VA 123
Hunter Mill Road Bikeway
Ped & Bike Path Network
Town of Lovettsville
Sidewalks and Trails
in the Town of Quantico
Herndon Trail to Dulles Rail
Herndon@ Van Buren I Worldgate Intersection
Town of Herndon
W&OD Trail Crossing Improvements
Town of Haymarket Streetscaping
Town Hall Square
Town of Herndon
VA 237 (Fairfax Dr.)
Courthouse Rd.
@ N. Randolph St.
Lorcom Lane
W&OD Trail Connector
W&OD Trail@ Leesburg
MI. Vernon Bike/Ped Trail
George Washington Parkway Crossing
Daniel's Run
Accotink Gateway Connector Trail
Various Locations- 2 Transit Stations &
Bike and Ped Trails and Sidewalks
City of Manassas WCL (Godwin Drive)
VA 234 Business
Route 28 Trail Extension
Fauquier Co. Line
Sidewalks and Trails
City of Fairfax
County-wide
Sidewalks, Trails, and Paths
Springfield
Springfield to Tysons Corner Trail
Alex.'s Union Station I King Street Metrorail Station
Rosslyn Circle Bike/Ped Grade Separation
Old Town Manassas City Square, Walkways, & Cross
Fauquier Co. Line
US 50 Interstate Bicycle Route
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Improvements
Arlington County,
County-wide
Sidewalks, Trails, and Paths
Fauquier Co. Line
US29Trail
Vermont
26th St. N.
Wolf Trap National Park
Wolf Trap National Park Pedestrian Crossing
Old Dominion Drive (VA 309) (Pedestrian & Bicycle lm Fairfax County Line
County-wide
Multi-Use Trails in Arlington County
To
Arlington Boulevard
DOT #860626C
Washington Blvd.
Hirs:Drive
VA7
VA 7
DC Line
Complete In
2015
2003
2007
2006
2007
2006
2006
2025
2007
2025
2010
2008
2007
2008
2004
2003
2025
2008
$425
$300
$999
$774
$500
$350
$800
$1,000
$1,093
2010
2006
$900
2025
2004
2004
2004
2025
2004
$1,500
$375
$1,250
$313
$3,200
$650
2010
2010
2007
2005
$800
$450
$750
$1,560
$1,200
$147,038
Appendix D
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
In the FY 2006-2011 TIP
From
To
District of Columbia
Anacostia Riverwalk Trail
2012
---
$14,400
2020
$8,250
2009
$12,500
2012
$180
2007
$500
Pedestrian Passagewayffunnel
2007
$2,300
2007
Rose Park
2007
$2.000
$300
2006
$500
2007
$1,000
Maryland
ADA Compliance Transportation Access
Countywide
$5,992
countywide
$1,537
Bethesda CBD
Alderton Lane
CBDs
$6,051
countywide
2008
$2,592
Fernwood Road
2006
2009
$1 ,788
2007
$3,000
2007
$4,435
University Blvd.
2006
$1 ,700
Wilson Blvd.
Washington Blvd.
2007
$500
Wakefield Park
2004
$2,257
Pershing Drive
2005
$735
Bike/Ped Trails
4 Regional Malls
2005
$750
Holmes Run
Powell Lane
2006
$395
2007
$800
$1,655
$1,000
Virgin ia
10th St. Pedestrian Facilities
2006
$400
Trail extension
2006
$754
Shirlington Road
2007
$935
1-395
Ripley Street
2006
$250
From
To
$13,404
Main Street
Town of Hamilton
2007
$48
MEADE STREET
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
2006
$125
2006
$5,000
Fairfax County-wide
2009
$500
$1 ,200
Fairfax County
Pedestrian Trail
2006
$992
Town of Clifton
-Phase II
2007
$56
Main Street
Hirst Drive
2007
$460
@Key Bridge
North Pentagon Parking Lot
2006
2007
$1,250
Memorial Drive
$219
Sidewalk Construction
City of Alexandria
City-wide
2007
$938
2006
$18
Snakeden Branch
2006
$767
W&ODTrail
Town of Herndon
2005
2008
$898
$670
2007
$920
2005
$338
US 29 Shared-Use Path
@US 50
1-66
Trinity Parkway
2006
US 50 (install fence)
VA 7
2007
$583
$563
US 50 Pedestrian Bridge
2007
$3,859
US 50 Pedestrian Improvements
Jaguar Trail
2007
$1 ,509
Ballston
@ 27th Street
2007
$1 ,250
2006
$63
VA 234 Business
2005
2007
$144
2006
$430
$649
1-66
2008
$481
Beauregard Street
1-395
2007
$372
VA 309 (Old Dominion Drive) (Pedestrian & Bicycle lmpr Fairfax County Line
$1 ,483
US 29 (Lee Highway)
Cricket Lane
2007
2008
$406
Maple Avenue
Pickwick Drive
2009
$535
VA9
@VA 704
2009
$1 ,980
__
Facility
From
To
Town of Herndon
2008
2007
$150
$335
$122,051
Appendix E
Completed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
From the Previous Bicycle Plan
For the National Capital Region
- --
Old #
State
Project
Limits/ Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Est.
Cost
(tho us)
125
Status/
Comments
1d
VA
ARL
ARL,
NVRPA
3k
30
VA
VA
Widen sidewalks
1)Construct bikeway linking
Columbia Pike and southern
Arlington to Mt. Vernon 2) widen
sidewalk along Washington Blvd
between Sycamore Street and
Glebe Road
ARL
ARL
ARL
DOD, ARL
51
VA
ARL
ARL
4c
VA
Arlington
Commercial Area
Bicycle Parking
Alexandria/Fairfax
Beltway Crossing
ALX, FFX
1a
DC
Washington Mall
DC
3a
DC
Georgetown to DC Line
DC
6i
DC/MONA
DC, MD, VA
DC,
WMATA
Complete
3am/
2000
VA
Gateway-Accotink
Connector
FFX
FFX
Mostly
Complete
3v
VA
Fairfax Parkway
Bikeway
FFX
FFX
Mall Trail
Improvements
Capital Crescent
Trail
Metro Bike-On-Rail
E-1
Complete
Complete
550
40
Complete
ARL, FFX,
VA
150
Complete
DC, NPS,
ARCH
DC, NPS
500
Complete
11800
Complete
1000
Partly
Complete
MC
MD, MC
MC
MC, MD,
FHWA
MC
RVUMNCP
PC
150
VA
MC , PGC
MC, NPS ,
PGC
183
Complete
3g
VA
Northwest Branch
Trail
PGC
NPS, PGC
200
Complete
3h
6j
VA
MD
Northeast Branch
Annapolis Rd . - Rte
450 Trail
PGC
PGC
PGC
PGC, MD
6o
MD
Cherrywood Lane
Metro Extension
PGC
PGC, MD
Complete
7h
MD
PGC
PGC
7j
MD
Complete.
Does not
extend into
Anne Arundel
County
Phase I
complete, from
Greenbelt to
Paint Branch
Parkway
2p
VA
PW
PW
MD
Georgetown Branch
Trail
MD
Bethesda TrolleyTrail
New
2000
MD
3f
;1 6e
I
6m
1
Complete
1720
Partly
Complete.
Two bridges
built
E-2
1500
375
Complete
under
construction
complete
7v
VA
New
VA
Prince William
Parkway
2000
PW
PWC , VA
PWC , VA
366
Funded/complete since
1995
E-3
Appendix F
Cordon Counts
Table 2-3
2002 Metro Core Cordon Count
Inbound Bicycles and Outbound Bicycles (outbound 1999 and 2002 on ly)
1986. 2002
6:30- 9:30A.M. and 3:30- 6:30P.M. (P.M. 1999 and 2002 only)
1986
1999
Locations
1987
1988
1990
1993
2002
1996
A.M.
inbound
P.M.
Outbound
A.M.
inbound
P.M.
Outbound
920
470
568
771
N/C
N/C
N/C
N/C
N/C
N/C
1, 152
409
1,025
565
1,379
645
1, 11 3
425
--
--
--
--
--
--
1,561
1,590
2,024
1,538
131
49
14
123
3 17
78
124
13
92
307
107
146
2
104
359
139
219
7
106
471
157
120
25
64
366
2 11
232
59
86
588
197
220
81
124
622
197
104
62
93
456
300
104
18
103
525
238
143
89
92
562
474
799
Numbers in this table are not statistically significant when combined with other Metro Core Cordon Count
data
TABLE 2-4
BICYCLE COUNT ON RADIAL
TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES CROSSING THE
CAPITAL BELTWAY
Yea r
Count
F- 1
Appendix G
Origin Station Sorted by o/o Walk Mode of Access
Table 2-10: Origin Station by Sorted by
% Walk Mode of Access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Origin Station/Mode
Federal Center
Capitol South
Archives-Navy Mem
Judiciary SQ
Farragut North
McPherson SQ
Federal Triangle
Farragut West
Court House
Woodley Park Zoo
Metro Center
Smithsonian
Waterfront
Gallery Place
Van Ness
Foggy Bottom
Dupont Circle
Cleveland Park
U Street
Mt Vernon SQ
Virginia Square
Arlington Cemetery
Navy Yard
Eastern Market
Columbia Heights
Crystal City
L'Enfant Plaza
Shaw Howard U
Clarendon
Eisenhower Avenue
Bethesda
Rosslyn
Ballston
Tenley Town
Friendship HTS
Pentagon City
%Bike
0.08%
0.21%
0.13%
0.00%
0.17%
0 .11%
0 .00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.64%
0.22%
0.00%
0.13%
% Walk
94.2%
93.8%
93.5%
92.9%
92.4%
92 .2%
92.2%
92 .0%
91.6%
90.9%
89.1%
88.1%
87.6%
14198
0.00%
86.4%
6557
21857
24040
5474
3744
1969
2940
1797
3173
4912
5339
13168
22716
3326
2975
1447
9635
15527
11355
6119
8892
14196
0.12%
0.06%
0.16%
0.15%
0.13%
0.36%
1.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.94%
1.05%
0.19%
0.00%
1.20%
0.97%
0.00%
0.12%
0.08%
0.29%
1.81%
0.40%
0.08%
85.7%
85.4%
85.0%
84.7%
84.6%
84.2%
83.0%
82 .3%
82.0%
81.7%
81.5%
80.8%
79.3%
77.3%
72.7%
72.6%
71.4%
70.3%
67.5%
67.3%
63.9%
63.8%
Bicycle
4
14
10
0
44
18
0
24
0
39
61
0
5
Walk
4550
6200
7310
9480
24214
15404
10591
22748
6373
5555
24548
11808
3340
All modes
4830
6609
7817
10201
26202
16700
11489
24714
6954
6109
27548
13409
3814
12260
8
13
39
8
5
7
31
0
0
46
56
25
0
40
29
0
12
13
33
111
36
11
5617
18673
20433
4637
3167
1658
2441
1479
2602
4014
4352
10640
18021
2571
2163
1051
6880
10921
7670
4117
5679
9060
G-1
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Origin Station/Mode
Medical Center
King Street
Union Station
Braddock Road
Stadium Armory
Georgia Avenue
Brookland CUA
Silver Spring
Benning Road
Potomac Avenue
Deanwood
National Airport
Takoma Park
West Hyattsville
Congress Heights
Forest Glen
White Flint
East Falls Church
Minnesota Avenue
Twinbrook
Prince George's
Plaza
Pentagon
Grosvenor
College Park
Wheaton
Capitol Heights
Rockville
Rhode Island
Avenue
Fort Totten
Naylor Road
Dunn Loring
Suitland
Van Darn Street
Huntington
Cheverly
Anacostia
Vienna
Glenmont
Southern Avenue
New Carrollton
West Falls Church
Landover
FranconiaSpringfield
Addison Road
Bicycle
88
33
53
48
5
0
10
101
0
0
0
0
41
28
7
23
8
113
0
57
15
Walk
3027
3609
17924
2039
1816
2156
3565
6453
1488
1487
836
2525
2649
1385
767
759
1559
1521
1042
1540
1474
All modes
4801
5899
29439
3429
3130
3950
6616
12484
2952
3035
1945
6016
6335
3452
1951
2076
4293
4312
2977
4409
4321
% Bike
1.83%
0.56%
0.18%
1.40%
0.16%
0.00%
0.15%
0.81 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.81%
0.36%
1.11 %
0.19%
2.62%
0.00%
1.29%
0.35%
%Walk
63.0%
61 .2%
60.9%
59.5%
58.0%
54.6%
53.9%
51.7%
50.4%
49.0%
43.0%
42.0%
41 .8%
40.1%
39.3%
36.6%
36.3%
35.3%
35.0%
34.9%
34.1%
0
80
100
27
0
44
19
4447
1131
960
1119
502
952
1058
14720
3877
3333
4759
2135
4191
5224
0.00%
2.06%
3.00%
0.57%
0.00%
1.05%
0.36%
30.2%
29.2%
28.8%
23.5%
23.5%
22.7%
20.3%
0
22
63
0
9
19
11
0
136
14
0
0
9
0
17
1146
490
731
878
554
1041
205
847
1391
508
441
727
671
220
456
6023
2628
4468
5461
3919
7482
1530
7228
12293
5457
4984
8698
8177
3195
8591
0.00%
0.84%
1.41%
0.00%
0.23%
0.25%
0.72%
0.00%
1.11%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
0.20%
19.0%
18.6%
16.4%
16.1%
14.1%
13.9%
13.4%
11 .7%
11.3%
9.3%
8.8%
8.4%
8.2%
6.9%
5.3%
284
6013
0.00%
4.7%
G-2
81
82
83
Origin Station/Mode
Greenbelt
Shady Grove
Branch Avenue
Total
%of Total Ridership
Bicycle
20
19
10
1991
0.31
Walk
270
342
48
393267
60.74
G-3
All modes
7015
11101
5355
647431
100
%Bike
0.29%
0.17%
0.19%
%Walk
3.8%
3.1%
0.9%
Appendix H
Origin Station Sorted by o/o Bike Mode of Access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Origin Station/Mode
College Park
East Falls Church
Grosvenor
Medical Center
Tenley Town
Dunn Loring
Braddock Road
Twin brook
Shaw Howard U
Forest Glen
Vienna
Virginia Square
Rockville
Columbia Heights
Clarendon
Eastern Market
Naylor Road
West Hyattsville
Silver Spring
Cheverly
Takoma Park
Woodley Park Zoo
Wheaton
King Street
Friendship HTS
Rhode Island
Avenue
Congress Heights
Mt Vernon SQ
Prince George's
Plaza
Ballston
Greenbelt
Glenmont
Huntington
% Walk
28.8%
35.3%
29.2%
63.0%
67.3%
16.4%
59.5%
34.9%
77.3%
36.6%
11.3%
83.0%
22.7%
81 .5%
72.7%
81.7%
18.6%
40.1%
51.7%
13.4%
41 .8%
90.9%
23.5%
61 .2%
63.9%
20.3%
7
7
15
767
1658
1474
1951
1969
4321
0.36%
0.36%
0.35%
39.3%
84.2%
34.1%
33
20
14
19
7670
270
508
1041
11355
7015
5457
7482
0.29%
0.29%
0.26%
0.25%
67.5%
3.8%
9.3%
13.9%
H-1
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Origin Station/Mode
Van Dorn Street
Metro Center
Capitol South
FranconiaSpringfield
Crystal City
Branch Avenue
White Flint
Union Station
Shady Grove
Farragut North
Dupont Circle
Stadium Armory
Brookland CUA
Cleveland Park
U Street
Waterfront
Archives-Navy Mem
Bethesda
Van Ness
West Falls Church
McPherson SQ
Farragut West
Rosslyn
Federal Center
Pentagon City
Foggy Bottom
Judiciary SQ
Federal Triangle
Court House
Smithsonian
Gallery Place
Arlington Cemetery
Navy Yard
L'Enfant Plaza
Eisenhower Avenue
Georgia Avenue
Benning Road
Potomac Avenue
Deanwood
National Airport
Minnesota Avenue
Pentagon
Capitol Heights
Fort Totten
Suitland
Bicycle
9
61
14
17
Walk
554
24548
6200
456
All modes
3919
27548
6609
8591
25
10
8
53
19
44
39
5
10
8
5
5
10
12
8
9
18
24
13
4
11
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10640
48
1559
17924
342
24214
20433
1816
3565
4637
3167
3340
7310
6880
5617
671
15404
22748
10921
4550
9060
18673
9480
10591
6373
11808
12260
1479
2602
18021
1051
2156
1488
1487
836
2525
1042
4447
502
1146
878
13168
5355
4293
29439
11101
26202
24040
3130
6616
5474
3744
3814
7817
9635
6557
8177
16700
24714
15527
4830
14196
21857
10201
11489
6954
13409
14198
1797
3173
22716
1447
3950
2952
3035
1945
6016
2977
14720
2135
6023
5461
H-2
%Bike
0.23%
0.22%
0.21%
0.20%
0.19%
0.19%
0.19%
0.18%
0.17%
0.17%
0.16%
0.16%
0.15%
0.15%
0.13%
0.13%
0.13%
0.12%
0.12%
0.11%
0.11%
0.10%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0 .00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
%Walk
14.1%
89.1%
93.8%
5.3%
80.8%
0.9%
36.3%
60.9%
3.1%
92.4%
85.0%
58.0%
53.9%
84.7%
84.6%
87.6%
93.5%
71.4%
85.7%
8.2%
92.2%
92.0%
70.3%
94.2%
63.8%
85.4%
92.9%
92.2%
91.6%
88.1%
86.4%
82.3%
82.0%
79.3%
72.6%
54.6%
50.4%
49.0%
43.0%
42.0%
35.0%
30.2%
23.5%
19.0%
16.1%
79
80
81
82
83
Origin Station/Mode
Anacostia
Southern Avenue
New Carrollton
Landover
Addison Road
Total
% of Total Ridership
Bicycle
0
0
0
0
0
1991
0.31
Walk
847
441
727
220
284
393267
60.74
H-3
All modes
7228
4984
8698
3195
6013
647431
100
%Bike
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
%Walk
11.7%
8.8%
8.4%
6.9%
4.7%
Appendix I
Bicycle Lockers and Racks at Metro Stations
Addison Road-Seat
Pleasant
Anacostia
Archives-Navy Mem'lPenn Quarter
Arlington Cemetery
Ballston-MU
Benning Road
Bethesda
Braddock Road
Branch Ave
Brookland-CUA
Capitol Heights
Capitol South
Cheverly
Clarendon
Cleveland Park
College Park-U of Md
Columbia Heights
Congress Heights
Court House
Crystal City
Deanwood
Dunn Loring-Merrifield
Dupont Circle
East Fa lls Church
Eastern Market
Eisenhower Ave
Farragut North
Fanagut West
TOTAL
LOCKERS
USED
LOCKERS
PERCENT
TOTAL
RACKS
18
Prince George's
DC
DC
Arlington County
Arlington County
DC
Montgomery
Alexandria
Prince George's
DC
Prince George's
DC
Prince George's
Arlington County
DC
Prince George's
DC
Prince George's
Arlington County
Arlington County
DC
Fairfax County
DC
Arlington County
DC
Alexandria
DC
DC
44
12
24
16
1-1
43
11
5
9
50%
98%
92%
21%
56%
6
12
40
12
12
5
12
17
4
2
83%
100%
43%
33%
17%
34
12
36
20
6
22
65%
58%
64%
85%
67%
23
17
4
13
54
4
48
46
10
10
6
34
12
16
89
4
10
20
10
6
40
16
88
10
8
4
STATION
JURISDICTION
Federal Center SW
Federal Triangle
Foggy Bottom-GW U
Forest Glen
Fort Totten
Franconia-Springfield
Friendship Heights
Gallery PI-Chinatown
Georgia Ave-Petwot1h
Glenmont
Greenbelt
Grosvenor-Strathmore
Huntington
Judiciary Sq
King Street
L' Enfant Plaza
Landover
Largo Town Center
McPherson Sq
Medical Center
Metro Center
Minnesota Ave
Morgan Boulevard
Mt Vernon Sq/7th StConvention Center
Navy Yard
Naylor Road
New Carrollton
New York Ave-Florida
Ave-Gallaudet U
Pentagon
Pentagon City
Potomac Ave
Prince George's Plaza
Rhode Island AveBrentwood
TOTAL
LOCKERS
DC
DC
DC
Montgomery
DC
Fairfax County
DC
DC
DC
Montgomery
Prince George's
Montgomery
Fa irfax County
DC
Alexandria
DC
Prince George's
Prince George's
DC
Montgomery
DC
DC
Prince George's
20
16
6
20
22
USED
LOCKERS
II
13
1
16
21
TOTAL
PERCENT RACKS
55%
81%
17%
80%
95%
2
20
10
42
10
37
44
12
48
52
30
12
17
38
22
7
8%
35%
73%
73%
58%
20
10
50%
36
60
40
34
13
34
8
48
1
4
13%
8%
26
9
DC
DC
Prince George's
Prince George's
38
34
89%
4
40
0
0
0%
0%
4
16
28
DC
Arl ington County
Arlimrton County
DC
Prince George's
22
24
DC
1-2
0
9
0%
56%
11%
13
4
59%
17%
88
4
8
9
6
12
10
18
10
6
8
21
40
14
STATION
JURISDICTION
Rockvi lle
Ronald Reagan
Washington Nationa l
Airp01t
Rosslyn
Shady Grove
Shaw-Howard U
Si lver Spring
Smithson ian
Southern Ave
Stadium-Armory
Su itland
Takoma
Ten leytown-A U
Twin brook
U St/African-Amer
Civi l War
Memoriai/Cardozo
Union Station
VanDorn Street
Van Ness-UDC
Vi enna/Fa irfax-GMU
Virginia Sq-GMU
Waterfront-S EU
West Fall s ChurchVT/UVA
West Hyattsv ille
Wheaton
White Flint
Woodley ParkZoo/Adams Morgan
TOTAL
LOCKERS
USED
LOCKERS
PERCENT
40
30
75%
Montgomery
Arlington County
Arlington County
Montgomery
DC
Montgomery
DC
Prince George's
DC
Prince George's
DC
DC
Montgomery
DC
DC
Alexandria
DC
Fairfax County
Arlington County
DC
TOTAL
RACKS
69
18
20
32
60
34
57%
30
26
87%
40
0%
26
2
14
20
60
20
26
0
48
10
5
0%
80%
50%
19%
10
42
20
68
6
8
56
32
3
46
25
23
20
17%
38%
82%
78%
54
12
22
Fairfax County
Prince George's
Montgomery
Montgomery
36
20
20
40
16
21
13
II
73%
58%
65%
55%
50
37
32
8
DC
1280
1858
NOTES:
Blank spaces indicate a value of zero.
All lockers li sted are owned by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
Locker usage data is current as of May 23, 2006, and arc subject to change.
1-3
Totals include racks not owned by WMA TA ; such racks are located w ithin 200 feet of a station
entrance.
Locker and rack totals are cu rrent as of May 22, 2006, and are subject to change.
1-4
Appendix J
Links and Resources
ADC Regional Bicycle Map
.adcmap.com
\NVtW
Alexandria Rideshare
www .alexride.om:
BikeArlington
www.bikearlington.com
BikeWashington
www.bikewashin!rton.org
www.smartergrowth.net
www.saferoutesinfo.org
WalkArlington
W\VW. wal karlington.com
Arlington walking information.
Appendix K
Glossary of Terms
BIKE-ON-RAIL PERM IT
BIKEWAY
K-1
GREENWAY
HIKER-BIKER TRAIL
METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREA
RAILS-TO-TRAILS
CONSERVANCY
RAIL-TRAIL
SHARED-USE PATH
SIDE-PATH
SIDEWALK
TRAVELED WAY
K-3
Appendix L
Glossary of Acronyms
AASHTO
ADA
AFA
CLRP
CMAQ
COG
DDOT
FHWA
FTA
ISTEA
MOOT
MPO
MSA
MTA
MUTCD
NCPC
NVTC
SAFETEA-LU
SHA
SOY
SRTS
TCSP
TEA-21
TIP
TPB
US DOT
VDOT
VMT
WABA
WMATA
L- 1
Appendix M
Priorities 2000 Greenways
Selected Existing
Greenways
l. Accotink Greenway
9. Ballenger Creek
Greenway
A. W&ODTrail
2. Anacostia Greenway
10 Broad Run/Rocky
Branch Greenway
B. Suitland
Parkway
Trail
C. Rock Creek
Parkway
4. Metropolitan Branch
Trail
D. Mount
Vernon Trai l
5. Monocacy River
Greenway
13. DCTrolley
Trail/Rhode Island
Avenue Tra il
E. CatoctinGambrill
Greenway
6. Northwest Branch
Greenway
14. Eisenhower
Avenue Greenway
F. Capital
7. Potomac Heritage
National Scenic Trail
G. C&O Cana l
8. Washington, Baltimore
& Annapolis Trai l
H. Appa lachian
M-1
Crescent
Tra il
Trai l
M-2
Selected Existing
Greenways
l. Northwest
Branch Trail
N
N
N
N
1 0 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 Niln
M-3
Appendix N
Bibliography
N-1
'-2