UAP Spring 2016 Transportation Studio 2018-05-15T21:25:04+00:00

      UAP

         SPRING 2016 TRANSPORTATION STUDIO

      UAP

        SPRING 2016 TRANSPORTATION STUDIO

      UAP

        SPRING 2016 TRANSPORTATION STUDIO

Virginia Tech Spring 2016 UAP Transportation Studio

Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area Bicycle Facilities Assessment: Current Conditions and Perceptions of Bike Infrastructure

UAP-5794 – Environmental Planning Studio
Douglas Cobb, Lauren Hall, Kyle Lukacs, Kerri Oddenino, Nick Ruiz, & Jon Wergin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this project was to evaluate and recommend bicycle infrastructure within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area on the basis of existing field conditions, crash analyses, and survey results. Although the Foggy Bottom Metro Area currently serves residential, commercial and institutional land uses, it has typically received significant criticism in regards to its existing bicycle infrastructure. In order to evaluate these conditions, a field review was conducted within the area, on the following six (6) roadways: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Virginia Avenue NW, G Street NW, and F Street NW. Based on the field review, limited to no infrastructure was noted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area. A crash analysis was also conducted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area to evaluate crash locations, patterns, and severity. Based on the crash analysis, which included the most recent six (6) years of data (January 2010 through June 2015), a total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the project area, with 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities. In addition, the majority of crashes that occurred were located on K Street NW (12%) and 17th Street NW (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue NW (8%) and Connecticut Avenue NW (8%), with the highest percentage of crashes occurring during weekday conditions. These results follow typical trends as the most populated streets during the work week appear to have the highest density of crashes.

The survey results were broken down into three main groups: Cyclists who ride in the study area, those who indicated that they do not ride a bike, and cyclists who self-identified as “interested, but concerned.” This third group is comprised of cyclists who want to ride more, but are concerned about one or more aspects of cycling. Respondents from all three groups showed a high support for the construction of all three types of bike facilities which were included in the survey questions. Pennsylvania Avenue NW was the street with the highest level of support for all three groups for the construction of bike facilities. It was found that support for protected bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue NW was higher than both support for bike lanes and fully separated bike facilities such as cycle tracks. In addition, construction of protected bike lanes was more likely than any other type of infrastructure to induce more cycling by the three groups on the wider thoroughfares such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues. Construction of bike lanes on one-way north/south roads such as 21st and 22nd Streets was more likely to encourage more cycling by those who said they already cycled in the study area. Protected bike lanes were most likely to encourage cycling by respondents who said they did not cycle in the study area. Overall, there was consensus from all three groups that the study area did not have adequate infrastructure and that there were many conflicts in the study area. Only those that biked in the study area viewed biking in the study area as safe, while the “interested, but concerned” and non-cyclists disagreeing.

Report Cover
Introduction

Washington, D.C., like many cities around the world, works to promote cycling to make the city’s transport system more sustainable and to reduce environmental, economic, and social costs.(1) Studies analyzing bicycle infrastructure and its impact on cycling generally suggest a positive relationship between bicycle facility mileage and levels of resident cycling.(2) Because of this, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) approached Virginia Tech and invited students to study how to improve bicycle infrastructure in the District. Over the course of the 2016 spring semester, six students participated in an Environmental Planning Studio held at Virginia Tech’s facility in Alexandria, VA to examine the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood of Washington. The studio was led by Professor Ralph Buehler with coordination from Darren Buck of DDOT.

Washington, DC has increased its share of residents regularly biking to work from 0.8% in 1990 to over 4.5% in 2013.(3) During the same time the city has greatly improved its bicycle infrastructure, reaching 56 miles of trails, 69 miles of bike lanes, and six miles of cycle tracks in 2014.(4) In the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood, however, bicycle infrastructure remains scarce. DDOT tasked this studio with taking a closer look at Foggy Bottom to assess the cycle-friendliness of the neighborhood, analyze who travels within it, and determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling. These objectives were met by studying existing conditions and proposed improvements, and by surveying those who travel through the area. This paper will open with an overview of the study area with data collected from field reviews. It will then analyze bicycle crashes in the area, introduce the survey and discuss its results, and close with policy recommendations for DDOT.

1: Pucher, John R., and Ralph Buehler. City Cycling. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012.
2: Buehler, R., and J. Dill. “Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling.” Transport Reviews 36, no. 1 (2016): 9-27.
3: DDOT. “District of Columbia Bike Program Fact Sheet.” 2014.
4: Ibid.

Study Area Overview

The study area boundaries are roughly 17th Street NW to the east, Rock Creek Parkway to the west, Constitution Avenue NW to the south, and M Street NW to the north. Even though Foggy Bottom’s northern border east of Washington Circle is generally thought of as Pennsylvania Avenue NW, the study area expanded to M St NW so that it would include all areas in between existing bike infrastructure and that the border aligned with those of census block groups analyzed in the study. The study area includes existing cycle tracks along M Street NW and L Street NW, the Rock Creek Trail, and connects to the National Mall. While there is existing bicycling infrastructure on the outer portions of the study area, there is a lack of infrastructure within.

There are three Metrorail stations in the study area. The Foggy Bottom-GWU and Farragut West stations are along the blue, orange, and silver lines while the Farragut North station is along the red line. Ample Metrobus and commuter bus service is also available throughout the study area. In addition, there are 23 bikeshare stations which help facilitate one-way unlinked trips. (See Figure 1).

The primary land uses within the study area are commercial, residential, and institutional. Almost the entire portion of the study area north of Pennsylvania Avenue is composed of commercial land uses with some public open space. The portion of the study area west of New Hampshire Avenue consists of residential land uses including row houses and apartment buildings. The George Washington University (GW) campus is situated between Pennsylvania Avenue and Virginia Avenue, an area accounting for the majority of institutional land uses. (See Figure 2).

Transit plays an important role for those commuting to the area. As can be seen in Figure 3, there are large concentrations of workers who work in the study area and live near Metrorail stations in Arlington, Alexandria, and Northwest Washington. Roughly, 27% of those living within the study area use public transport as the primary means of commuting to work, compared to 19% in the entire D.C. Metropolitan area. Most people within the study area walk to work (54%) while relatively few use automobiles compared to the D.C. region wide average (11% vs. 69%). About 2% of commuters use a bicycle to get to work which is above the regional average (1%) but below the DC average (4%). (See Figure 3).

Table 1

Within the study area, 7,069 or 70% of residents are undergraduate, graduate, or professional students. This high concentration of students is due to the location of GW. Within the study area, the median age ranges from 19.5 to 66.9. The average median age is 31.67 within the study area compared to 38.42 throughout the region. Among the 10,271 residents of the study area, 52.71% are female (5,413) and 47.29% are male (4,858). This is roughly in line with the regional split of 48.47% male and 51.51% female. (See Figure 4, Figure 5).

There are several large national and international organizations within the study area including a large presence of federal government institutions. The U.S. Department of State, Department of the Interior, and General Services Administration are all headquartered here. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Red Cross, and the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization are also headquartered in the study area. George Washington University (GW) spans 42 acres of the study area and features 26 residence halls and over 70 administrative and academic buildings. (George Washington University. Foggy Bottom Campus. Retrieved from: https://www.gwu.edu/foggy-bottom-campus).

These ‘anchor institutions’ offer a wide range of benefits to encourage employees to bike to work. For example, the World Bank offers a wide range of benefits to their cycling community and has the largest number of employees (600) engaged in the initiative. The World Bank tends to the needs of bike commuters by offering plentiful bike parking (700 spots), including in their secure garage; Corporate Capital Bikeshare memberships (of which 350 employees take advantage); and showering and changing facilities. The World Bank also offers a relative disincentive to motor vehicle drivers; in a city where many employees can park their cars at a discount or for free, the World Bank charges market rates for garage parking, perhaps encouraging employees to think twice about driving to work. (Handsfield, Will. (2014). Congress Gives Itself More Free Parking Than Its Own Rules Allow. Streetsblog USA. Retrieved from: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/24/congress-gives-itself-more-free-parking-than-its-own-rules-allow/). The World Bank also promotes cycling by engaging in a week-long promotion of National Bike to Work Day. The week-long activities include a pre-event ride for World Bank employees on the day before National Bike to Work Day. See Table X for the full list of World Bank commuter bike benefits. (World Bank Group. 2016. Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report).

While the World Bank possibly offers the broadest range of bicycle commuter benefits, the study area also benefits from robust bicycle commuter benefits programs at the U.S. Department of State and GW. The State Department has a free bicycle loaner program available to employees and contractors for use during the day, which appears similar to the Priority Bicycle program offered to hotel guests at The River Inn (Foggy Bottom). (http://www.theriverinn.com/wellness-fitness.aspx Accessed 5/1/16). The State Department also offers a commuter subsidy in the form of a monthly stipend – one benefit of its commuter bicycling program of which 365 employees were recently signed up. (U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30; Accessed 5/1/16).

With nearly 500 bike parking spots already and 225 additional spots associated with pending development sites, GW appears poised to surpass the World Bank for the most bike parking associated with an anchor institution in the study area. In addition to the plentiful bike parking at GW (broadened also by the presence of a multitude of Capital Bikeshare stations), the University tends to the needs of faculty and staff commuting by bike by availing the shower and changing facilities at the Lerner Health and Wellness Center to those who are not otherwise members of the gym for the bargain price of $50/semester. Lastly, university police offer a bike registration program for those who want the extra assurance that their bike can be tracked if necessary. (The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 Accessed 5/1/16).

For the full list of anchor institutions and the ways they encourage their employees to bike to work, see Appendix A.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Field Review

Two field reviews were conducted within the study area to evaluate existing roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure conditions that could be impacting current and proposed bicycle ridership. The field reviews were conducted during the morning (7AM – 9AM), Mid-day (11AM-1PM), and evening (4PM-6PM) peak periods. The following field reviews were conducted:

  • Windshield Field Review – conducted to review bicycle racks and parking within the study area.
  • Walking Field Review – conducted to evaluate pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 below outline the windshield and walking field reviews including both methodology and findings.

3.1 Windshield Field Review

The windshield field review was conducted by car. “Windshield” reviews are done while driving, therefore permitting faster travel speed, but only allowing one to two attributes to be reviewed. For purposes of this study, the windshield field review was conducted to review the bicycle racks and parking within the study area. Figure 7 shows a map of the bicycle rack locations within the study area (identified during the windshield review).

As shown in Figure 7, a majority of bicycle racks are located within the northeast quadrant of the study area. Note, however, that Figure 7 does not account for the capacity of bike parking at each location. In addition to the personal bike racks shown, Capital Bikeshare locations are provided throughout the study area. (See Figure 7).

3.2 Walking Field Review

The walking field review was conducted by three evaluators who utilized an inventory rubric to evaluate and note the presence and condition of the existing pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features. The inventory rubric was developed based on a concept created by the University of Maryland Urban Planning Department. (Clifton, K. et al. 2004. Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool. Retrieved from: http://activelivingresearch.org/pedestrian-environment-data-scan-peds-tool).

As the study area spans across a large space, the walking field review was narrowed down to specific roadways that were likely to need improvements or were already being proposed for improvement. In order to determine these roadways, the MoveDC Plan (District Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan) was reviewed to determine the locations of proposed bicycle infrastructure. Based on this review the following roadways were evaluated: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, G Street NW, F Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and Virginia Avenue NW. Figure 8 illustrates the locations of the existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure, as provided in the MoveDC Plan.
Based on the walking field review, the following was concluded:

  • Roadways were observed to have posted speed limits of 15mph in and around The George Washington University, while the surrounding roadways operated at 25mph. In addition, while one-way roadways have been known to promote higher roadway speeds, vehicles observed within the field appeared to be traveling at slower speeds, which could be advantageous when considering roadway redesign for bicycle infrastructure.
  • Roadways observed were designated primarily as three-lane one-way roadways (21st ST NW, 22nd ST NW, G ST NW, and F ST NW), with the outer lanes (left and right lanes) serving as on-street parking in varying locations. Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW both serve as two-way roadways, with Pennsylvania Avenue NW operating as a six-lane divided roadway and Virginia Avenue NW operating as a four-lane divided roadway.
  • Limited to no bicycle infrastructure was provided along any of the roadways, with the exception of a few bicycle racks and Capital Bikeshare stations located within pedestrian walking areas; however, with limited infrastructure present, opportunities for roadway redevelopment become much more practical and easier to implement.
  • Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW serve as diagonal roadways within the study area, which create complex and problematic intersections for both roadway and bicycle users.

Overall, based on the two field reviews, the study area was observed to have substantial personal bike parking and Capital Bikeshare stations; however, the existing bicycle infrastructure provided on the evaluated streets is limited, but has the potential for significant improvements for enhanced bicycle facilities.

Figure 7
Figure 8
Crash Analysis

A crash analysis, which included a review of crash data, was conducted to evaluate the potential bicycle safety deficiencies that occur within the study area.

4.1 Procedure

Bicycle crash data for the most recent available six years (January 2010 through June 2015) were obtained from DC Open Data.15 The crash data were evaluated to identify crash locations and patterns, severity of crashes, and likely causes for crashes. The findings, including summaries of the crash data analysis, are provided in the following sections.

4.2 Crash Data Analysis

4.2.1 Crashes by Year
A total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the study area from January 2010 to June 2015, as shown in Figure 9. A total of 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities occurred within the study area. The number of crashes increased between 2010 and 2012. It should be noted, that while the number of crashes appears to decrease from 2014 to 2015, the data collected for the crash analysis only included data through June 2015; therefore, the data may be relative to previous years if the remaining data from 2015 was included. (See Figure 9).

4.2.2 Crashes by Day
Figure 10 displays the number of crashes that occurred by day of week. Although crashes occurred on each day, the highest frequency of crashes occurred on Tuesday (21%), Friday (21%), and Thursday (17%). (See Figure 10).

4.2.3 Crashes by Street Location
As shown in Figure 11: 11th Street (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue (8%), Connecticut Avenue (8%), 18th Street (7%), L Street (7%), and 19th Street (6%); the remaining crash locations each accounted for less than 5% of the overall crashes. Higher crash numbers may be associated with higher concentrations of cycling activity. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. (See Figure 11).

Figure 12 shows a heat map of the bicycle crashes within our study area. As shown in Figure 12, the majority of crashes that occurred were located in the northeast region of the study area. As already noted, the frequency of crashes within this region may be due to the fact that Connecticut Avenue NW, New Hampshire Avenue NW, and Pennsylvania Avenue NW have a higher bicycle ridership, and not necessarily related to dangerous conditions present within this area. (See Figure 12).

4.2.4 Crashes by Roadway Condition
Figure 13 indicates the number of crashes by roadway surface condition. The majority (86%) of crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. Wet conditions accounted for 9% of crashes. (See Figure 13).

Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 12
Figure 12
Figure 13
Survey

5.1 Methodology

A survey was conducted about bicycle infrastructure and cycling in the study area. The survey was modeled after existing surveys on this topic. The majority of the survey questions were taken from the 2014 study, “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.,” by Chris Monsere et al and published by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities. (Monsere, C. et al. 2014. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. National Institute for Transportation and Communities. Retrieved from: http://www.ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ProtectedBikeLanes_NITC-June2014.pdf). That study presented findings from surveys and other research about the use, perceptions, benefits and impacts of protected bike lanes in five U.S. cities. Other consulted work included Jennifer Dill’s 2012 study, “Four Types of Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” (Dill, J. and N. McNeil. 2013. Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research Record (2387): 129-138.). The 2014 MoveDC Plan, by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), was consulted during the selection of survey locations and development of questions about streets and bicycle facilities. (District Department of Transportation. 2014. MoveDC. District of Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.wemovedc.org/).

The survey was posted online using Google Forms. The mission of the survey was to assess the cycle-friendliness of the study area, find out who travels in the study area, and to determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling in the study area. The survey included questions about perceptions of bicycle infrastructure and safety as well as questions about support for cycling and bicycle infrastructure in the study area.

At the top of the survey page, viewers were given information about the purpose of the survey and the odds of winning one of four $50 gift cards. Viewers were then informed that their consent was voluntary, that results would be confidential, and that Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board panelists could be contacted if there were any questions or concerns about the survey.

At the beginning of the survey, study participants were shown a map of the study area and asked whether or not they lived, worked or traveled in the study area. Participants who answered “no” for this question were branched out of the survey. Participants who continued the survey were then asked about demographic information including gender, age, and student status. Participants were also asked about their reasons for travel in the area, trip origin, modes used for travel, bicycle usage, Capital Bikeshare usage, and attitudes towards cycling on roadways. Participants who replied “no” when asked if they biked in the study area were branched past questions about biking in the study area.

The section of the survey about biking in the study area included questions about the importance of factors influencing route choice. Factors included directness of route, the presence of different types of bicycle infrastructure, hills, traffic, and other road conditions. Participants were also asked about their experience with collisions and near collisions with various types of obstacles while bicycling in the study area.
The subsequent section of the survey asked participants about their perceptions of safety and bicycling in the study area. Participants were asked about their support for bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes, both in terms of general support for the facility type in the study area, and support for the installation of bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully protected bike lanes on specific streets in the area. Participants were also asked whether or not they would bike more if the aforementioned facilities were installed on these streets.

At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide their email address in order to be entered into a drawing for one of four $50 Amazon.com gift cards. Participants were also asked whether they wished to be contacted for a more in depth survey of their bicycle habits and opinions.

The survey was distributed using several different methods. Three samples were obtained using three identical copies of the same online Google Form. For the first sample, to accompany in-person distribution of survey information, a postcard was created that included a web address and QR code linking to the survey along with general information about the study. Approximately 1,500 postcards were handed out at 15 crosswalks, intersections, and other natural stopping points in the study area. Postcards were handed out on weekdays during morning (7:00AM-9:30AM), Mid-Day (11:00AM-1:00PM) and evening (4:00PM-7:00PM) rush hours. The survey was conducted over a two week period between March 7, 2016 and March 23, 2016. Besides the sample that was obtained through postcard distribution in the study area, two additional samples were obtained online. One sample included the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) Twitter list, and the other was based on social media and outreach to bicycling and other groups in and around the study area.

5.2 Survey Results and Analysis

5.2.1 Respondent Information
A grand total of 221 respondents elected to take the survey either from the URL provided on the survey card, through an online distribution, or through a link provided on WABA’s employee Twitter feed. A total of 191 respondents said they traveled through or in the study area for any activity, and therefore were able to complete the entire survey. Those that indicated they did not travel within or to the study area were sent to the end of the survey and were told that they would not be included in this study. These respondents were still eligible to win a gift card as compensation for completing the survey.

The most common age cohort among the 191 respondents who were qualified to complete the survey was the 25 to 34 group with about 50% of all respondents. The second and third most common age groups were 18-24 and 35-44 year-olds, with 16% and 14% of total respondents, respectively. Two respondents were younger than 18 years old, and both indicated that they were students. It should be noted that while we did not specifically target young people or students for our data, choosing survey distribution locations in a neighborhood with The George Washington University as the main anchor institution meant that a significant number of respondents identified as students: 24% of respondents identified as students. Predictably so, the vast majority of these respondents were in the 18-24 year-old age cohort. The gender split for all respondents was roughly 63% to 37% male to female, which means that males were slightly over-represented in this survey relative to the demographics of the neighborhood. 68% said they owned a working bike at home.

The vast majority (65%) of respondents said they use Metro to travel to the study area. In addition, personal bike, foot and Capital Bikeshare were modes used by 47%, 50% and 21% of respondents, respectively. Because respondents could select more than one mode of travel, data from this question does not add to 100% (See Figure 14 for more detail).

There were 112 respondents (59%) who said they biked in the study area for some reason. Among both those who used a personal bike and those who used Capital Bikeshare to bike in the study area, the majority were men. Men made up a little over 70% of personal bike-in-the-study-area respondents, while men made up about 80% of Capital Bikeshare-in-the-study-area respondents. This supports other data that suggest that bikeshare users are predominantly male and that cyclist commuters in general are primarily male, but as a lesser percent than bikeshare users. (See Figure 15).

5.2.2 Frequency of Bike Travel
When asked how frequently and how far one rides his or her bike, the results to both questions resulted in “U” shaped data, with many respondents saying they never rode and many saying they rode a bike more than seven times per week. (See Figure 16).Likewise, 24% of respondents said they never rode a bike when asked how many miles per week they rode, however 17% said they rode more than 50 miles per week. The WABA respondents, who rode more frequently and longer distances on average than the rest of the sample, skewed the results in these two categories upwards. (See Figure 17).

71% of survey respondents did not have a Capital Bikeshare membership, and of those that did, the vast majority (26%) had an annual membership. This is most likely due to the fact that tourists, who are more common users of the 24-hour and 3-day membership options, were not targeted in this survey.

Cyclists in the study area who use personal bikes were more likely to ride more than seven days per week than Capital Bikeshare riders, and also more likely to ride more than 20-50 and 50+ miles per week. (See Figure 18).

5.2.3 Cyclist Types
Each respondent who reported riding a bike was classified using Roger Geller’s typology distinguishing between either “Strong and Fearless”: able to ride in all conditions and roadway types, “Enthused and Confident”: confident riding a bike, but preferring to do so on dedicated bike infrastructure, “Interested but Concerned”: wanting to bike more but concerned about one or more aspect of cycling, and “No-Way No-How”: those who were unwilling or unable to ride a bike. The results shown in Figure 19 differ from national level results, where “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists make up roughly 60% of the population. This inconsistency could be explained by the 27 WABA cyclist respondents, who were either “Strong and Fearless” or “Enthused and Confident,” with none being “Interested, but concerned.” It could also be explained by relatively high overall cycling levels in D.C, and/or the relatively young age of most of the respondents. Young people who cycle may be more confident cycling in the city and physically fit enough for it as well. It should also be noted that 82% of “Strong and Fearless” cyclists in this survey were male, which is in line with national-level findings. Also of note: the gender spread of the “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists was far more equal to the overall population than any of the other groups measured, with 54% being female and 46% being male. Females were best represented in this data under the “No-way No-How” type of cyclist, with 65% of this cyclist group identifying as female. (See Figure 19; Figure 20).

5.2.4 Interested but Concerned
The analysis focused on the “Interested, but Concerned” (IBC) group because IBC cyclists are not cycling much now, but are interested in becoming regular cyclists.

Most IBC cyclists (67%) traveled to the study area for work. 43% said they use foot as a means of transportation to/from or in the study area. 22% said they take Metro to/from or in the study area. Because the survey asked respondents where they came from prior to entering the study area, distance traveled data was available for this, and other groups. The IBC cyclists traveled on average 4.39 miles to the study area, with 63% traveling 5 miles or less to the study area. 54% of IBC cyclists owned a bike in working condition at home, while only slightly less than the 68% that owned a working bike in the total survey population. Travel distance to the study area and availability of a working bicycle are not barriers for a majority of IBC cyclists. The study additionally looked at the perceptions of bike infrastructure among IBC cyclists and other groups in the survey.

Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Survey Participant Perceptions

5.2.5 Perceptions of Infrastructure

The survey asked respondents to assess three types of proposed bike infrastructure in the study area based on proposals from the MoveDC bike master plan. The three types of infrastructure were bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes. Under each question concerning the particular type of infrastructure, a photo example was given to reduce any errors or false response. See Figure 23 for examples.

For those who rode in the study area, those who did not ride a bike and the IBC cyclists, the protected bike lane was the facility treatment that had the most support. Despite differences in support by the three groups, all three groups gave all three treatment types an average support score of at least 4 out of 5 points. There was moderate agreement among all three groups that there were many conflicts between cyclists and a vehicle or a piece of the built environment in the study area. Those who do not ride were slightly more likely to agree with this statement. Only those who rode in the study area said that they agreed that cycling in the study area was safe. (See Figure 24 and Figure 25 for more detail). It is important to note that among all three groups, there was clear disagreement with the statement that the study area had adequate bike infrastructure, with average scores between 2.2 and 2.5 out of 5.

5.2.6 Desired Locations of Bike Facilities

Respondents from all three cyclist types preferred some level of facility on Pennsylvania Ave. NW in the study area. IBC cyclists and those who not cycle in the study area said the presence of both protected bike lanes or fully separated bike lanes on this street would encourage them to ride more often in the study area. For those who did bike in the study area, any type of facility on Pennsylvania Avenue NW would induce more cycling from this group. 21st Street NW was also a street that would induce cycling from all three groups if facilities were added. (See Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28 for more detail).

Results show that protected bike lanes generally would encourage all three groups to ride more often on most streets. Support is even greater than for the fully separated bike lane, which provides the highest level of separation. Among those who bike (and are assumed to be familiar with the existing roadway configurations and facilities) in the study area, protected bike lanes would be more likely to induce more cycling on streets such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Ave, while bike lanes without protection were more likely to produce this effect on streets such as 21st and 22nd (and also G Street.) This is most likely because Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues are wide, multi-lane arterials with fast speeds that would be better suited for protected treatments, while 21st and 22nd are one-lane, one-way streets that have slower speeds and more frequent intersections and would be better suited for a bike lane treatment. It could be that existing cyclists could judge which types of facilities might “fit” better on each street based on their experience cycling elsewhere. In most cases, those who did not bike and the IBC cyclists were more likely to favor protected bike lanes on streets listed in this survey.

5.2.7 Overall Support

Overall, there was robust support for the construction of all three types of facilities when all responses were taken together. Here overall support for protected bike lanes is higher than for fully separated bike lanes and standard bike lanes. This was inconsistent with the expected levels of support for the three treatment types. The “Strong and Fearless” are likely willing to ride in any roadway condition with no issues and may even feel trapped by riding in a fully separated facility, preferring the open road to a narrower bike lane with fewer opportunities to pass slower cyclists. Among different types of cyclists the “Strong and Fearless” showed the highest percentage of disagreement towards fully separated bike lanes. Despite this, support among all groups and for all facility types was strong in the study area, suggesting that a demand exists here for better bike infrastructure. (See Figure 29; Figure 30).

The vast majority of respondents who cycle in the study area say they consider the most direct route as most important when traveling by bike in the study area. Second and third to this was presence of a bike lane and being separated, or avoiding car traffic. This further supports the claim that bike facilities are wanted and that cyclists desire a fast and direct way to transit the study area. In some places, respondents also wish to do so by avoiding car traffic. Interestingly, avoiding stop signs or traffic lights were the least important factor for cyclists when riding in the study area. This should be taken into consideration when designing facilities there. Also, it was found that most cyclists rarely cycled on sidewalks in the study area. (See Figure 31; Figure 33).

Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 31
Figure 33
Policy Recommendations

Based on the results of the survey, field review, and crash analysis, we offer the following recommendations to guide implementation of bike infrastructure:

6.1 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

The roadway operates as a six-lane divided arterial that provides limited bicycle infrastructure and has a high density of crashes along the roadway section. In addition, based on the survey results, all three surveyed groups indicated strong support for a protected bike facility on this street. Therefore, we are recommending modifying the roadway laneage from a six-lane divided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane in each direction), thus providing a minimum of 11 additional feet in each direction to accommodate either a cycle track or protected bike lane. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.2 F Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. There was mixed support for the three different facilities, however, protected facilities were more favored. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate a protected cycle facility. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.3 G Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. Opinions for bike facilities on G Street was similar to F Street, however those who cycled in the study area were more likely to support an unprotected bike lane. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a wide two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate at a minimum a bike lane with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.4 21st Street NW/22nd Street NW

These roadways operate as three-lane one-way arterials that provide on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadways provide limited to no on-street bicycle infrastructure; however, the roadways do not have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. The majority of respondents from all three groups indicated bike lanes on these streets would encourage more cycling. It is recommended to modify the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway section (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate bicycle lanes with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

Appendix A: Anchor Institutions
Anchor Institution Support for Commuter Bicycling Program
The World Bank Group (20) 600 / 10000 employees bike to work
700 bike parking spots (secure garage parking and outdoor racks)
Offers corporate Capital Bikeshare membership to employees (350 members)
Offers 5 bike repair stations
Promotes Bike-to-Work Day with weeklong activity and day before “Ride to Work Day”
Offers 2 bike safety classes
Offers shower and changing facilities, lockers for clothes storage
Provides disincentive for motor vehicle use by charging market rates for motor vehicle parking
Partnerships with local bike shops offer discount deals, bike repair workshops
U.S. Department of State (21) Bike Commuter Program (365 employees signed up)
Free loaner bike program for employees and contractors
Bike repair stipends / subsidy for commuters
Bike racks
Commuter showers and lockers
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations around the Department
The George Washington University (22) Bike Parking: “Nearly 500” spots, 225 proposed, on street and in buildings
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations on campus
Employee access to health and wellness center’s shower/changing facilities for $50/semester (for nonmembers)
Bike registration
International Monetary Fund (23) Bike racks
Showers “nearby and in the fitness centers”
U.S. Department of the Interior (24) Complementary shower/changing facilities (10) and lockers
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (25) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
U.S. General Services Administration (26) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (27) $125 taxable benefit to reimburse for costs of bike-to-work expenses
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (28) Bike parking; Capital Bikeshare onsite
American Pharmacists Association (29) Bike racks
The Red Cross (30) Bike racks

20: The World Bank Group. 2016. (Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report.)
21: U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30 (accessed 5/1/16)
22: The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 (accessed 5/1/16)
23: International Monetary Fund recruitment (“Other Benefits and Services”) webpage https://www.imf.org/external/np/adm/rec/workenv/facserv.htm#5 (accessed 5/1/16)
24: U.S. Department of the Interior document “2014 Federal Bike to Work Challenge Department of the Interior Results with Bureaus” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/transportation/upload/DOI_results_bureau.pdf, p. 7 (accessed 5/1/16)
25: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
26: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
27: The National Academies “2014 Benefits at a Glance” document. http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_053295.pdf, p. 6 (accessed 5/1/16)
28: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts visitor directions webpage. http://www.kennedy-center.org/visitor/directions.html (accessed 5/1/16)
29: American Pharmacists Association webpage on organization’s commitment to environment. https://www.pharmacist.com/commitment-environment (accessed 5/1/16)
30: “Miss with a Mission” Blog, with photo of bike racks at Red Cross’ square. https://misswithamission.wordpress.com/ (accessed 5/1/16)

Download the Complete Report
UAP MURP Transportation Studio 2016
MURP Contact Information

Leigh Bower (Blacksburg)
Graduate Student Coordinator
leighb14@vt.edu
(540) 231-5485

Myriam Lechuga (D.C.)
Graduate Student Coordinator
mlechuga@vt.edu
(703) 706-8111

Tom Sanchez (UAP Chair) tom.sanchez@vt.edu | (540) 231-5425
Yang Zhang (MURP Coordinator) yz@vt.edu | (540) 231-1128
Ralph Hall (PUA/EPP Coordinator) rphall@vt.edu | (540) 231-7332

Security Code:
security code
Please enter the security code:

Submit
Apply to the MURP Program
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Master’s program requires applicants to submit an online application form, application fee, official transcripts of previous academic work, personal statement, three letters of recommendation, and resume. In addition, all applicants who did not earn an undergraduate degree from a university in the US must submit GRE scores, and all international applicants whose first language is not English must submit TOEFL scores. Note that the Graduate School requires a minimum cumulative grade point average (GPA) for admission of 3.0 or better. Applicants with GPAs below this may be qualified depending on professional experience and other accomplishments.
APPLICATION DEADLINES
The Master’s program accepts applications on a rolling basis, with the following deadlines:

Fall Admission – August 1
Spring Admission – January 1

However, note that applicants who want to be considered for financial aid MUST have their application completed by March 1 for the Fall admission, or October 1 for the Spring admission.

> HOW TO APPLY TO THE VIRGINIA TECH GRADUATE SCHOOL
> INFO SESSIONS AND UPCOMING EVENTS

REQUEST INFORMATION
Virginia Tech Spring 2016 UAP Transportation Studio

Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area Bicycle Facilities Assessment: Current Conditions and Perceptions of Bike Infrastructure

UAP-5794 – Environmental Planning Studio
Douglas Cobb, Lauren Hall, Kyle Lukacs, Kerri Oddenino, Nick Ruiz, & Jon Wergin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this project was to evaluate and recommend bicycle infrastructure within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area on the basis of existing field conditions, crash analyses, and survey results. Although the Foggy Bottom Metro Area currently serves residential, commercial and institutional land uses, it has typically received significant criticism in regards to its existing bicycle infrastructure. In order to evaluate these conditions, a field review was conducted within the area, on the following six (6) roadways: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Virginia Avenue NW, G Street NW, and F Street NW. Based on the field review, limited to no infrastructure was noted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area. A crash analysis was also conducted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area to evaluate crash locations, patterns, and severity. Based on the crash analysis, which included the most recent six (6) years of data (January 2010 through June 2015), a total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the project area, with 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities. In addition, the majority of crashes that occurred were located on K Street NW (12%) and 17th Street NW (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue NW (8%) and Connecticut Avenue NW (8%), with the highest percentage of crashes occurring during weekday conditions. These results follow typical trends as the most populated streets during the work week appear to have the highest density of crashes.

The survey results were broken down into three main groups: Cyclists who ride in the study area, those who indicated that they do not ride a bike, and cyclists who self-identified as “interested, but concerned.” This third group is comprised of cyclists who want to ride more, but are concerned about one or more aspects of cycling. Respondents from all three groups showed a high support for the construction of all three types of bike facilities which were included in the survey questions. Pennsylvania Avenue NW was the street with the highest level of support for all three groups for the construction of bike facilities. It was found that support for protected bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue NW was higher than both support for bike lanes and fully separated bike facilities such as cycle tracks. In addition, construction of protected bike lanes was more likely than any other type of infrastructure to induce more cycling by the three groups on the wider thoroughfares such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues. Construction of bike lanes on one-way north/south roads such as 21st and 22nd Streets was more likely to encourage more cycling by those who said they already cycled in the study area. Protected bike lanes were most likely to encourage cycling by respondents who said they did not cycle in the study area. Overall, there was consensus from all three groups that the study area did not have adequate infrastructure and that there were many conflicts in the study area. Only those that biked in the study area viewed biking in the study area as safe, while the “interested, but concerned” and non-cyclists disagreeing.

Report Cover
Introduction

Washington, D.C., like many cities around the world, works to promote cycling to make the city’s transport system more sustainable and to reduce environmental, economic, and social costs.(1) Studies analyzing bicycle infrastructure and its impact on cycling generally suggest a positive relationship between bicycle facility mileage and levels of resident cycling.(2) Because of this, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) approached Virginia Tech and invited students to study how to improve bicycle infrastructure in the District. Over the course of the 2016 spring semester, six students participated in an Environmental Planning Studio held at Virginia Tech’s facility in Alexandria, VA to examine the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood of Washington. The studio was led by Professor Ralph Buehler with coordination from Darren Buck of DDOT.

Washington, DC has increased its share of residents regularly biking to work from 0.8% in 1990 to over 4.5% in 2013.(3) During the same time the city has greatly improved its bicycle infrastructure, reaching 56 miles of trails, 69 miles of bike lanes, and six miles of cycle tracks in 2014.(4) In the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood, however, bicycle infrastructure remains scarce. DDOT tasked this studio with taking a closer look at Foggy Bottom to assess the cycle-friendliness of the neighborhood, analyze who travels within it, and determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling. These objectives were met by studying existing conditions and proposed improvements, and by surveying those who travel through the area. This paper will open with an overview of the study area with data collected from field reviews. It will then analyze bicycle crashes in the area, introduce the survey and discuss its results, and close with policy recommendations for DDOT.

1: Pucher, John R., and Ralph Buehler. City Cycling. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012.
2: Buehler, R., and J. Dill. “Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling.” Transport Reviews 36, no. 1 (2016): 9-27.
3: DDOT. “District of Columbia Bike Program Fact Sheet.” 2014.
4: Ibid.

Study Area Overview

The study area boundaries are roughly 17th Street NW to the east, Rock Creek Parkway to the west, Constitution Avenue NW to the south, and M Street NW to the north. Even though Foggy Bottom’s northern border east of Washington Circle is generally thought of as Pennsylvania Avenue NW, the study area expanded to M St NW so that it would include all areas in between existing bike infrastructure and that the border aligned with those of census block groups analyzed in the study. The study area includes existing cycle tracks along M Street NW and L Street NW, the Rock Creek Trail, and connects to the National Mall. While there is existing bicycling infrastructure on the outer portions of the study area, there is a lack of infrastructure within.

There are three Metrorail stations in the study area. The Foggy Bottom-GWU and Farragut West stations are along the blue, orange, and silver lines while the Farragut North station is along the red line. Ample Metrobus and commuter bus service is also available throughout the study area. In addition, there are 23 bikeshare stations which help facilitate one-way unlinked trips. (See Figure 1).

The primary land uses within the study area are commercial, residential, and institutional. Almost the entire portion of the study area north of Pennsylvania Avenue is composed of commercial land uses with some public open space. The portion of the study area west of New Hampshire Avenue consists of residential land uses including row houses and apartment buildings. The George Washington University (GW) campus is situated between Pennsylvania Avenue and Virginia Avenue, an area accounting for the majority of institutional land uses. (See Figure 2).

Transit plays an important role for those commuting to the area. As can be seen in Figure 3, there are large concentrations of workers who work in the study area and live near Metrorail stations in Arlington, Alexandria, and Northwest Washington. Roughly, 27% of those living within the study area use public transport as the primary means of commuting to work, compared to 19% in the entire D.C. Metropolitan area. Most people within the study area walk to work (54%) while relatively few use automobiles compared to the D.C. region wide average (11% vs. 69%). About 2% of commuters use a bicycle to get to work which is above the regional average (1%) but below the DC average (4%). (See Figure 3).

Table 1

Within the study area, 7,069 or 70% of residents are undergraduate, graduate, or professional students. This high concentration of students is due to the location of GW. Within the study area, the median age ranges from 19.5 to 66.9. The average median age is 31.67 within the study area compared to 38.42 throughout the region. Among the 10,271 residents of the study area, 52.71% are female (5,413) and 47.29% are male (4,858). This is roughly in line with the regional split of 48.47% male and 51.51% female. (See Figure 4, Figure 5).

There are several large national and international organizations within the study area including a large presence of federal government institutions. The U.S. Department of State, Department of the Interior, and General Services Administration are all headquartered here. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Red Cross, and the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization are also headquartered in the study area. George Washington University (GW) spans 42 acres of the study area and features 26 residence halls and over 70 administrative and academic buildings. (George Washington University. Foggy Bottom Campus. Retrieved from: https://www.gwu.edu/foggy-bottom-campus).

These ‘anchor institutions’ offer a wide range of benefits to encourage employees to bike to work. For example, the World Bank offers a wide range of benefits to their cycling community and has the largest number of employees (600) engaged in the initiative. The World Bank tends to the needs of bike commuters by offering plentiful bike parking (700 spots), including in their secure garage; Corporate Capital Bikeshare memberships (of which 350 employees take advantage); and showering and changing facilities. The World Bank also offers a relative disincentive to motor vehicle drivers; in a city where many employees can park their cars at a discount or for free, the World Bank charges market rates for garage parking, perhaps encouraging employees to think twice about driving to work. (Handsfield, Will. (2014). Congress Gives Itself More Free Parking Than Its Own Rules Allow. Streetsblog USA. Retrieved from: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/24/congress-gives-itself-more-free-parking-than-its-own-rules-allow/). The World Bank also promotes cycling by engaging in a week-long promotion of National Bike to Work Day. The week-long activities include a pre-event ride for World Bank employees on the day before National Bike to Work Day. See Table X for the full list of World Bank commuter bike benefits. (World Bank Group. 2016. Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report).

While the World Bank possibly offers the broadest range of bicycle commuter benefits, the study area also benefits from robust bicycle commuter benefits programs at the U.S. Department of State and GW. The State Department has a free bicycle loaner program available to employees and contractors for use during the day, which appears similar to the Priority Bicycle program offered to hotel guests at The River Inn (Foggy Bottom). (http://www.theriverinn.com/wellness-fitness.aspx Accessed 5/1/16). The State Department also offers a commuter subsidy in the form of a monthly stipend – one benefit of its commuter bicycling program of which 365 employees were recently signed up. (U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30; Accessed 5/1/16).

With nearly 500 bike parking spots already and 225 additional spots associated with pending development sites, GW appears poised to surpass the World Bank for the most bike parking associated with an anchor institution in the study area. In addition to the plentiful bike parking at GW (broadened also by the presence of a multitude of Capital Bikeshare stations), the University tends to the needs of faculty and staff commuting by bike by availing the shower and changing facilities at the Lerner Health and Wellness Center to those who are not otherwise members of the gym for the bargain price of $50/semester. Lastly, university police offer a bike registration program for those who want the extra assurance that their bike can be tracked if necessary. (The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 Accessed 5/1/16).

For the full list of anchor institutions and the ways they encourage their employees to bike to work, see Appendix A.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Field Review

Two field reviews were conducted within the study area to evaluate existing roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure conditions that could be impacting current and proposed bicycle ridership. The field reviews were conducted during the morning (7AM – 9AM), Mid-day (11AM-1PM), and evening (4PM-6PM) peak periods. The following field reviews were conducted:

  • Windshield Field Review – conducted to review bicycle racks and parking within the study area.
  • Walking Field Review – conducted to evaluate pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 below outline the windshield and walking field reviews including both methodology and findings.

3.1 Windshield Field Review

The windshield field review was conducted by car. “Windshield” reviews are done while driving, therefore permitting faster travel speed, but only allowing one to two attributes to be reviewed. For purposes of this study, the windshield field review was conducted to review the bicycle racks and parking within the study area. Figure 7 shows a map of the bicycle rack locations within the study area (identified during the windshield review).

As shown in Figure 7, a majority of bicycle racks are located within the northeast quadrant of the study area. Note, however, that Figure 7 does not account for the capacity of bike parking at each location. In addition to the personal bike racks shown, Capital Bikeshare locations are provided throughout the study area. (See Figure 7).

3.2 Walking Field Review

The walking field review was conducted by three evaluators who utilized an inventory rubric to evaluate and note the presence and condition of the existing pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features. The inventory rubric was developed based on a concept created by the University of Maryland Urban Planning Department. (Clifton, K. et al. 2004. Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool. Retrieved from: http://activelivingresearch.org/pedestrian-environment-data-scan-peds-tool).

As the study area spans across a large space, the walking field review was narrowed down to specific roadways that were likely to need improvements or were already being proposed for improvement. In order to determine these roadways, the MoveDC Plan (District Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan) was reviewed to determine the locations of proposed bicycle infrastructure. Based on this review the following roadways were evaluated: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, G Street NW, F Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and Virginia Avenue NW. Figure 8 illustrates the locations of the existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure, as provided in the MoveDC Plan.
Based on the walking field review, the following was concluded:

  • Roadways were observed to have posted speed limits of 15mph in and around The George Washington University, while the surrounding roadways operated at 25mph. In addition, while one-way roadways have been known to promote higher roadway speeds, vehicles observed within the field appeared to be traveling at slower speeds, which could be advantageous when considering roadway redesign for bicycle infrastructure.
  • Roadways observed were designated primarily as three-lane one-way roadways (21st ST NW, 22nd ST NW, G ST NW, and F ST NW), with the outer lanes (left and right lanes) serving as on-street parking in varying locations. Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW both serve as two-way roadways, with Pennsylvania Avenue NW operating as a six-lane divided roadway and Virginia Avenue NW operating as a four-lane divided roadway.
  • Limited to no bicycle infrastructure was provided along any of the roadways, with the exception of a few bicycle racks and Capital Bikeshare stations located within pedestrian walking areas; however, with limited infrastructure present, opportunities for roadway redevelopment become much more practical and easier to implement.
  • Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW serve as diagonal roadways within the study area, which create complex and problematic intersections for both roadway and bicycle users.

Overall, based on the two field reviews, the study area was observed to have substantial personal bike parking and Capital Bikeshare stations; however, the existing bicycle infrastructure provided on the evaluated streets is limited, but has the potential for significant improvements for enhanced bicycle facilities.

Figure 7
Figure 8
Crash Analysis

A crash analysis, which included a review of crash data, was conducted to evaluate the potential bicycle safety deficiencies that occur within the study area.

4.1 Procedure

Bicycle crash data for the most recent available six years (January 2010 through June 2015) were obtained from DC Open Data.15 The crash data were evaluated to identify crash locations and patterns, severity of crashes, and likely causes for crashes. The findings, including summaries of the crash data analysis, are provided in the following sections.

4.2 Crash Data Analysis

4.2.1 Crashes by Year
A total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the study area from January 2010 to June 2015, as shown in Figure 9. A total of 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities occurred within the study area. The number of crashes increased between 2010 and 2012. It should be noted, that while the number of crashes appears to decrease from 2014 to 2015, the data collected for the crash analysis only included data through June 2015; therefore, the data may be relative to previous years if the remaining data from 2015 was included. (See Figure 9).

4.2.2 Crashes by Day
Figure 10 displays the number of crashes that occurred by day of week. Although crashes occurred on each day, the highest frequency of crashes occurred on Tuesday (21%), Friday (21%), and Thursday (17%). (See Figure 10).

4.2.3 Crashes by Street Location
As shown in Figure 11: 11th Street (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue (8%), Connecticut Avenue (8%), 18th Street (7%), L Street (7%), and 19th Street (6%); the remaining crash locations each accounted for less than 5% of the overall crashes. Higher crash numbers may be associated with higher concentrations of cycling activity. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. (See Figure 11).

Figure 12 shows a heat map of the bicycle crashes within our study area. As shown in Figure 12, the majority of crashes that occurred were located in the northeast region of the study area. As already noted, the frequency of crashes within this region may be due to the fact that Connecticut Avenue NW, New Hampshire Avenue NW, and Pennsylvania Avenue NW have a higher bicycle ridership, and not necessarily related to dangerous conditions present within this area. (See Figure 12).

4.2.4 Crashes by Roadway Condition
Figure 13 indicates the number of crashes by roadway surface condition. The majority (86%) of crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. Wet conditions accounted for 9% of crashes. (See Figure 13).

Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 12
Figure 12
Figure 13
Survey

5.1 Methodology

A survey was conducted about bicycle infrastructure and cycling in the study area. The survey was modeled after existing surveys on this topic. The majority of the survey questions were taken from the 2014 study, “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.,” by Chris Monsere et al and published by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities. (Monsere, C. et al. 2014. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. National Institute for Transportation and Communities. Retrieved from: http://www.ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ProtectedBikeLanes_NITC-June2014.pdf). That study presented findings from surveys and other research about the use, perceptions, benefits and impacts of protected bike lanes in five U.S. cities. Other consulted work included Jennifer Dill’s 2012 study, “Four Types of Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” (Dill, J. and N. McNeil. 2013. Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research Record (2387): 129-138.). The 2014 MoveDC Plan, by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), was consulted during the selection of survey locations and development of questions about streets and bicycle facilities. (District Department of Transportation. 2014. MoveDC. District of Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.wemovedc.org/).

The survey was posted online using Google Forms. The mission of the survey was to assess the cycle-friendliness of the study area, find out who travels in the study area, and to determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling in the study area. The survey included questions about perceptions of bicycle infrastructure and safety as well as questions about support for cycling and bicycle infrastructure in the study area.

At the top of the survey page, viewers were given information about the purpose of the survey and the odds of winning one of four $50 gift cards. Viewers were then informed that their consent was voluntary, that results would be confidential, and that Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board panelists could be contacted if there were any questions or concerns about the survey.

At the beginning of the survey, study participants were shown a map of the study area and asked whether or not they lived, worked or traveled in the study area. Participants who answered “no” for this question were branched out of the survey. Participants who continued the survey were then asked about demographic information including gender, age, and student status. Participants were also asked about their reasons for travel in the area, trip origin, modes used for travel, bicycle usage, Capital Bikeshare usage, and attitudes towards cycling on roadways. Participants who replied “no” when asked if they biked in the study area were branched past questions about biking in the study area.

The section of the survey about biking in the study area included questions about the importance of factors influencing route choice. Factors included directness of route, the presence of different types of bicycle infrastructure, hills, traffic, and other road conditions. Participants were also asked about their experience with collisions and near collisions with various types of obstacles while bicycling in the study area.
The subsequent section of the survey asked participants about their perceptions of safety and bicycling in the study area. Participants were asked about their support for bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes, both in terms of general support for the facility type in the study area, and support for the installation of bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully protected bike lanes on specific streets in the area. Participants were also asked whether or not they would bike more if the aforementioned facilities were installed on these streets.

At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide their email address in order to be entered into a drawing for one of four $50 Amazon.com gift cards. Participants were also asked whether they wished to be contacted for a more in depth survey of their bicycle habits and opinions.

The survey was distributed using several different methods. Three samples were obtained using three identical copies of the same online Google Form. For the first sample, to accompany in-person distribution of survey information, a postcard was created that included a web address and QR code linking to the survey along with general information about the study. Approximately 1,500 postcards were handed out at 15 crosswalks, intersections, and other natural stopping points in the study area. Postcards were handed out on weekdays during morning (7:00AM-9:30AM), Mid-Day (11:00AM-1:00PM) and evening (4:00PM-7:00PM) rush hours. The survey was conducted over a two week period between March 7, 2016 and March 23, 2016. Besides the sample that was obtained through postcard distribution in the study area, two additional samples were obtained online. One sample included the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) Twitter list, and the other was based on social media and outreach to bicycling and other groups in and around the study area.

5.2 Survey Results and Analysis

5.2.1 Respondent Information
A grand total of 221 respondents elected to take the survey either from the URL provided on the survey card, through an online distribution, or through a link provided on WABA’s employee Twitter feed. A total of 191 respondents said they traveled through or in the study area for any activity, and therefore were able to complete the entire survey. Those that indicated they did not travel within or to the study area were sent to the end of the survey and were told that they would not be included in this study. These respondents were still eligible to win a gift card as compensation for completing the survey.

The most common age cohort among the 191 respondents who were qualified to complete the survey was the 25 to 34 group with about 50% of all respondents. The second and third most common age groups were 18-24 and 35-44 year-olds, with 16% and 14% of total respondents, respectively. Two respondents were younger than 18 years old, and both indicated that they were students. It should be noted that while we did not specifically target young people or students for our data, choosing survey distribution locations in a neighborhood with The George Washington University as the main anchor institution meant that a significant number of respondents identified as students: 24% of respondents identified as students. Predictably so, the vast majority of these respondents were in the 18-24 year-old age cohort. The gender split for all respondents was roughly 63% to 37% male to female, which means that males were slightly over-represented in this survey relative to the demographics of the neighborhood. 68% said they owned a working bike at home.

The vast majority (65%) of respondents said they use Metro to travel to the study area. In addition, personal bike, foot and Capital Bikeshare were modes used by 47%, 50% and 21% of respondents, respectively. Because respondents could select more than one mode of travel, data from this question does not add to 100% (See Figure 14 for more detail).

There were 112 respondents (59%) who said they biked in the study area for some reason. Among both those who used a personal bike and those who used Capital Bikeshare to bike in the study area, the majority were men. Men made up a little over 70% of personal bike-in-the-study-area respondents, while men made up about 80% of Capital Bikeshare-in-the-study-area respondents. This supports other data that suggest that bikeshare users are predominantly male and that cyclist commuters in general are primarily male, but as a lesser percent than bikeshare users. (See Figure 15).

5.2.2 Frequency of Bike Travel
When asked how frequently and how far one rides his or her bike, the results to both questions resulted in “U” shaped data, with many respondents saying they never rode and many saying they rode a bike more than seven times per week. (See Figure 16).Likewise, 24% of respondents said they never rode a bike when asked how many miles per week they rode, however 17% said they rode more than 50 miles per week. The WABA respondents, who rode more frequently and longer distances on average than the rest of the sample, skewed the results in these two categories upwards. (See Figure 17).

71% of survey respondents did not have a Capital Bikeshare membership, and of those that did, the vast majority (26%) had an annual membership. This is most likely due to the fact that tourists, who are more common users of the 24-hour and 3-day membership options, were not targeted in this survey.

Cyclists in the study area who use personal bikes were more likely to ride more than seven days per week than Capital Bikeshare riders, and also more likely to ride more than 20-50 and 50+ miles per week. (See Figure 18).

5.2.3 Cyclist Types
Each respondent who reported riding a bike was classified using Roger Geller’s typology distinguishing between either “Strong and Fearless”: able to ride in all conditions and roadway types, “Enthused and Confident”: confident riding a bike, but preferring to do so on dedicated bike infrastructure, “Interested but Concerned”: wanting to bike more but concerned about one or more aspect of cycling, and “No-Way No-How”: those who were unwilling or unable to ride a bike. The results shown in Figure 19 differ from national level results, where “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists make up roughly 60% of the population. This inconsistency could be explained by the 27 WABA cyclist respondents, who were either “Strong and Fearless” or “Enthused and Confident,” with none being “Interested, but concerned.” It could also be explained by relatively high overall cycling levels in D.C, and/or the relatively young age of most of the respondents. Young people who cycle may be more confident cycling in the city and physically fit enough for it as well. It should also be noted that 82% of “Strong and Fearless” cyclists in this survey were male, which is in line with national-level findings. Also of note: the gender spread of the “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists was far more equal to the overall population than any of the other groups measured, with 54% being female and 46% being male. Females were best represented in this data under the “No-way No-How” type of cyclist, with 65% of this cyclist group identifying as female. (See Figure 19; Figure 20).

5.2.4 Interested but Concerned
The analysis focused on the “Interested, but Concerned” (IBC) group because IBC cyclists are not cycling much now, but are interested in becoming regular cyclists.

Most IBC cyclists (67%) traveled to the study area for work. 43% said they use foot as a means of transportation to/from or in the study area. 22% said they take Metro to/from or in the study area. Because the survey asked respondents where they came from prior to entering the study area, distance traveled data was available for this, and other groups. The IBC cyclists traveled on average 4.39 miles to the study area, with 63% traveling 5 miles or less to the study area. 54% of IBC cyclists owned a bike in working condition at home, while only slightly less than the 68% that owned a working bike in the total survey population. Travel distance to the study area and availability of a working bicycle are not barriers for a majority of IBC cyclists. The study additionally looked at the perceptions of bike infrastructure among IBC cyclists and other groups in the survey.

Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Survey Participant Perceptions

5.2.5 Perceptions of Infrastructure

The survey asked respondents to assess three types of proposed bike infrastructure in the study area based on proposals from the MoveDC bike master plan. The three types of infrastructure were bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes. Under each question concerning the particular type of infrastructure, a photo example was given to reduce any errors or false response. See Figure 23 for examples.

For those who rode in the study area, those who did not ride a bike and the IBC cyclists, the protected bike lane was the facility treatment that had the most support. Despite differences in support by the three groups, all three groups gave all three treatment types an average support score of at least 4 out of 5 points. There was moderate agreement among all three groups that there were many conflicts between cyclists and a vehicle or a piece of the built environment in the study area. Those who do not ride were slightly more likely to agree with this statement. Only those who rode in the study area said that they agreed that cycling in the study area was safe. (See Figure 24 and Figure 25 for more detail). It is important to note that among all three groups, there was clear disagreement with the statement that the study area had adequate bike infrastructure, with average scores between 2.2 and 2.5 out of 5.

5.2.6 Desired Locations of Bike Facilities

Respondents from all three cyclist types preferred some level of facility on Pennsylvania Ave. NW in the study area. IBC cyclists and those who not cycle in the study area said the presence of both protected bike lanes or fully separated bike lanes on this street would encourage them to ride more often in the study area. For those who did bike in the study area, any type of facility on Pennsylvania Avenue NW would induce more cycling from this group. 21st Street NW was also a street that would induce cycling from all three groups if facilities were added. (See Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28 for more detail).

Results show that protected bike lanes generally would encourage all three groups to ride more often on most streets. Support is even greater than for the fully separated bike lane, which provides the highest level of separation. Among those who bike (and are assumed to be familiar with the existing roadway configurations and facilities) in the study area, protected bike lanes would be more likely to induce more cycling on streets such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Ave, while bike lanes without protection were more likely to produce this effect on streets such as 21st and 22nd (and also G Street.) This is most likely because Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues are wide, multi-lane arterials with fast speeds that would be better suited for protected treatments, while 21st and 22nd are one-lane, one-way streets that have slower speeds and more frequent intersections and would be better suited for a bike lane treatment. It could be that existing cyclists could judge which types of facilities might “fit” better on each street based on their experience cycling elsewhere. In most cases, those who did not bike and the IBC cyclists were more likely to favor protected bike lanes on streets listed in this survey.

5.2.7 Overall Support

Overall, there was robust support for the construction of all three types of facilities when all responses were taken together. Here overall support for protected bike lanes is higher than for fully separated bike lanes and standard bike lanes. This was inconsistent with the expected levels of support for the three treatment types. The “Strong and Fearless” are likely willing to ride in any roadway condition with no issues and may even feel trapped by riding in a fully separated facility, preferring the open road to a narrower bike lane with fewer opportunities to pass slower cyclists. Among different types of cyclists the “Strong and Fearless” showed the highest percentage of disagreement towards fully separated bike lanes. Despite this, support among all groups and for all facility types was strong in the study area, suggesting that a demand exists here for better bike infrastructure. (See Figure 29; Figure 30).

The vast majority of respondents who cycle in the study area say they consider the most direct route as most important when traveling by bike in the study area. Second and third to this was presence of a bike lane and being separated, or avoiding car traffic. This further supports the claim that bike facilities are wanted and that cyclists desire a fast and direct way to transit the study area. In some places, respondents also wish to do so by avoiding car traffic. Interestingly, avoiding stop signs or traffic lights were the least important factor for cyclists when riding in the study area. This should be taken into consideration when designing facilities there. Also, it was found that most cyclists rarely cycled on sidewalks in the study area. (See Figure 31; Figure 33).

Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 31
Figure 33
Policy Recommendations

Based on the results of the survey, field review, and crash analysis, we offer the following recommendations to guide implementation of bike infrastructure:

6.1 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

The roadway operates as a six-lane divided arterial that provides limited bicycle infrastructure and has a high density of crashes along the roadway section. In addition, based on the survey results, all three surveyed groups indicated strong support for a protected bike facility on this street. Therefore, we are recommending modifying the roadway laneage from a six-lane divided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane in each direction), thus providing a minimum of 11 additional feet in each direction to accommodate either a cycle track or protected bike lane. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.2 F Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. There was mixed support for the three different facilities, however, protected facilities were more favored. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate a protected cycle facility. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.3 G Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. Opinions for bike facilities on G Street was similar to F Street, however those who cycled in the study area were more likely to support an unprotected bike lane. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a wide two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate at a minimum a bike lane with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.4 21st Street NW/22nd Street NW

These roadways operate as three-lane one-way arterials that provide on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadways provide limited to no on-street bicycle infrastructure; however, the roadways do not have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. The majority of respondents from all three groups indicated bike lanes on these streets would encourage more cycling. It is recommended to modify the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway section (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate bicycle lanes with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

Appendix A: Anchor Institutions
Anchor Institution Support for Commuter Bicycling Program
The World Bank Group (20) 600 / 10000 employees bike to work
700 bike parking spots (secure garage parking and outdoor racks)
Offers corporate Capital Bikeshare membership to employees (350 members)
Offers 5 bike repair stations
Promotes Bike-to-Work Day with weeklong activity and day before “Ride to Work Day”
Offers 2 bike safety classes
Offers shower and changing facilities, lockers for clothes storage
Provides disincentive for motor vehicle use by charging market rates for motor vehicle parking
Partnerships with local bike shops offer discount deals, bike repair workshops
U.S. Department of State (21) Bike Commuter Program (365 employees signed up)
Free loaner bike program for employees and contractors
Bike repair stipends / subsidy for commuters
Bike racks
Commuter showers and lockers
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations around the Department
The George Washington University (22) Bike Parking: “Nearly 500” spots, 225 proposed, on street and in buildings
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations on campus
Employee access to health and wellness center’s shower/changing facilities for $50/semester (for nonmembers)
Bike registration
International Monetary Fund (23) Bike racks
Showers “nearby and in the fitness centers”
U.S. Department of the Interior (24) Complementary shower/changing facilities (10) and lockers
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (25) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
U.S. General Services Administration (26) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (27) $125 taxable benefit to reimburse for costs of bike-to-work expenses
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (28) Bike parking; Capital Bikeshare onsite
American Pharmacists Association (29) Bike racks
The Red Cross (30) Bike racks

20: The World Bank Group. 2016. (Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report.)
21: U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30 (accessed 5/1/16)
22: The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 (accessed 5/1/16)
23: International Monetary Fund recruitment (“Other Benefits and Services”) webpage https://www.imf.org/external/np/adm/rec/workenv/facserv.htm#5 (accessed 5/1/16)
24: U.S. Department of the Interior document “2014 Federal Bike to Work Challenge Department of the Interior Results with Bureaus” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/transportation/upload/DOI_results_bureau.pdf, p. 7 (accessed 5/1/16)
25: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
26: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
27: The National Academies “2014 Benefits at a Glance” document. http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_053295.pdf, p. 6 (accessed 5/1/16)
28: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts visitor directions webpage. http://www.kennedy-center.org/visitor/directions.html (accessed 5/1/16)
29: American Pharmacists Association webpage on organization’s commitment to environment. https://www.pharmacist.com/commitment-environment (accessed 5/1/16)
30: “Miss with a Mission” Blog, with photo of bike racks at Red Cross’ square. https://misswithamission.wordpress.com/ (accessed 5/1/16)

Download the Complete Report
UAP MURP Transportation Studio 2016
MURP Contact Information

Leigh Bower (Blacksburg)
Graduate Student Coordinator
leighb14@vt.edu
(540) 231-5485

Myriam Lechuga (D.C.)
Graduate Student Coordinator
mlechuga@vt.edu
(703) 706-8111

Tom Sanchez (UAP Chair) tom.sanchez@vt.edu | (540) 231-5425
Yang Zhang (MURP Coordinator) yz@vt.edu | (540) 231-1128
Ralph Hall (PUA/EPP Coordinator) rphall@vt.edu | (540) 231-7332

Security Code:
security code
Please enter the security code:

Submit
Apply to the MURP Program
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Master’s program requires applicants to submit an online application form, application fee, official transcripts of previous academic work, personal statement, three letters of recommendation, and resume. In addition, all applicants who did not earn an undergraduate degree from a university in the US must submit GRE scores, and all international applicants whose first language is not English must submit TOEFL scores. Note that the Graduate School requires a minimum cumulative grade point average (GPA) for admission of 3.0 or better. Applicants with GPAs below this may be qualified depending on professional experience and other accomplishments.
APPLICATION DEADLINES
The Master’s program accepts applications on a rolling basis, with the following deadlines:

Fall Admission – August 1
Spring Admission – January 1

However, note that applicants who want to be considered for financial aid MUST have their application completed by March 1 for the Fall admission, or October 1 for the Spring admission.

> HOW TO APPLY TO THE VIRGINIA TECH GRADUATE SCHOOL
> INFO SESSIONS AND UPCOMING EVENTS

REQUEST INFORMATION
Virginia Tech Spring 2016 UAP Transportation Studio

Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area Bicycle Facilities Assessment: Current Conditions and Perceptions of Bike Infrastructure

UAP-5794 – Environmental Planning Studio
Douglas Cobb, Lauren Hall, Kyle Lukacs, Kerri Oddenino, Nick Ruiz, & Jon Wergin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this project was to evaluate and recommend bicycle infrastructure within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area on the basis of existing field conditions, crash analyses, and survey results. Although the Foggy Bottom Metro Area currently serves residential, commercial and institutional land uses, it has typically received significant criticism in regards to its existing bicycle infrastructure. In order to evaluate these conditions, a field review was conducted within the area, on the following six (6) roadways: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Virginia Avenue NW, G Street NW, and F Street NW. Based on the field review, limited to no infrastructure was noted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area. A crash analysis was also conducted within the Foggy Bottom Metro Area to evaluate crash locations, patterns, and severity. Based on the crash analysis, which included the most recent six (6) years of data (January 2010 through June 2015), a total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the project area, with 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities. In addition, the majority of crashes that occurred were located on K Street NW (12%) and 17th Street NW (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue NW (8%) and Connecticut Avenue NW (8%), with the highest percentage of crashes occurring during weekday conditions. These results follow typical trends as the most populated streets during the work week appear to have the highest density of crashes.

The survey results were broken down into three main groups: Cyclists who ride in the study area, those who indicated that they do not ride a bike, and cyclists who self-identified as “interested, but concerned.” This third group is comprised of cyclists who want to ride more, but are concerned about one or more aspects of cycling. Respondents from all three groups showed a high support for the construction of all three types of bike facilities which were included in the survey questions. Pennsylvania Avenue NW was the street with the highest level of support for all three groups for the construction of bike facilities. It was found that support for protected bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue NW was higher than both support for bike lanes and fully separated bike facilities such as cycle tracks. In addition, construction of protected bike lanes was more likely than any other type of infrastructure to induce more cycling by the three groups on the wider thoroughfares such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues. Construction of bike lanes on one-way north/south roads such as 21st and 22nd Streets was more likely to encourage more cycling by those who said they already cycled in the study area. Protected bike lanes were most likely to encourage cycling by respondents who said they did not cycle in the study area. Overall, there was consensus from all three groups that the study area did not have adequate infrastructure and that there were many conflicts in the study area. Only those that biked in the study area viewed biking in the study area as safe, while the “interested, but concerned” and non-cyclists disagreeing.

Report Cover
Introduction

Washington, D.C., like many cities around the world, works to promote cycling to make the city’s transport system more sustainable and to reduce environmental, economic, and social costs.(1) Studies analyzing bicycle infrastructure and its impact on cycling generally suggest a positive relationship between bicycle facility mileage and levels of resident cycling.(2) Because of this, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) approached Virginia Tech and invited students to study how to improve bicycle infrastructure in the District. Over the course of the 2016 spring semester, six students participated in an Environmental Planning Studio held at Virginia Tech’s facility in Alexandria, VA to examine the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood of Washington. The studio was led by Professor Ralph Buehler with coordination from Darren Buck of DDOT.

Washington, DC has increased its share of residents regularly biking to work from 0.8% in 1990 to over 4.5% in 2013.(3) During the same time the city has greatly improved its bicycle infrastructure, reaching 56 miles of trails, 69 miles of bike lanes, and six miles of cycle tracks in 2014.(4) In the Foggy Bottom-Farragut Area neighborhood, however, bicycle infrastructure remains scarce. DDOT tasked this studio with taking a closer look at Foggy Bottom to assess the cycle-friendliness of the neighborhood, analyze who travels within it, and determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling. These objectives were met by studying existing conditions and proposed improvements, and by surveying those who travel through the area. This paper will open with an overview of the study area with data collected from field reviews. It will then analyze bicycle crashes in the area, introduce the survey and discuss its results, and close with policy recommendations for DDOT.

1: Pucher, John R., and Ralph Buehler. City Cycling. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012.
2: Buehler, R., and J. Dill. “Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling.” Transport Reviews 36, no. 1 (2016): 9-27.
3: DDOT. “District of Columbia Bike Program Fact Sheet.” 2014.
4: Ibid.

Study Area Overview

The study area boundaries are roughly 17th Street NW to the east, Rock Creek Parkway to the west, Constitution Avenue NW to the south, and M Street NW to the north. Even though Foggy Bottom’s northern border east of Washington Circle is generally thought of as Pennsylvania Avenue NW, the study area expanded to M St NW so that it would include all areas in between existing bike infrastructure and that the border aligned with those of census block groups analyzed in the study. The study area includes existing cycle tracks along M Street NW and L Street NW, the Rock Creek Trail, and connects to the National Mall. While there is existing bicycling infrastructure on the outer portions of the study area, there is a lack of infrastructure within.

There are three Metrorail stations in the study area. The Foggy Bottom-GWU and Farragut West stations are along the blue, orange, and silver lines while the Farragut North station is along the red line. Ample Metrobus and commuter bus service is also available throughout the study area. In addition, there are 23 bikeshare stations which help facilitate one-way unlinked trips. (See Figure 1).

The primary land uses within the study area are commercial, residential, and institutional. Almost the entire portion of the study area north of Pennsylvania Avenue is composed of commercial land uses with some public open space. The portion of the study area west of New Hampshire Avenue consists of residential land uses including row houses and apartment buildings. The George Washington University (GW) campus is situated between Pennsylvania Avenue and Virginia Avenue, an area accounting for the majority of institutional land uses. (See Figure 2).

Transit plays an important role for those commuting to the area. As can be seen in Figure 3, there are large concentrations of workers who work in the study area and live near Metrorail stations in Arlington, Alexandria, and Northwest Washington. Roughly, 27% of those living within the study area use public transport as the primary means of commuting to work, compared to 19% in the entire D.C. Metropolitan area. Most people within the study area walk to work (54%) while relatively few use automobiles compared to the D.C. region wide average (11% vs. 69%). About 2% of commuters use a bicycle to get to work which is above the regional average (1%) but below the DC average (4%). (See Figure 3).

Table 1

Within the study area, 7,069 or 70% of residents are undergraduate, graduate, or professional students. This high concentration of students is due to the location of GW. Within the study area, the median age ranges from 19.5 to 66.9. The average median age is 31.67 within the study area compared to 38.42 throughout the region. Among the 10,271 residents of the study area, 52.71% are female (5,413) and 47.29% are male (4,858). This is roughly in line with the regional split of 48.47% male and 51.51% female. (See Figure 4, Figure 5).

There are several large national and international organizations within the study area including a large presence of federal government institutions. The U.S. Department of State, Department of the Interior, and General Services Administration are all headquartered here. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Red Cross, and the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization are also headquartered in the study area. George Washington University (GW) spans 42 acres of the study area and features 26 residence halls and over 70 administrative and academic buildings. (George Washington University. Foggy Bottom Campus. Retrieved from: https://www.gwu.edu/foggy-bottom-campus).

These ‘anchor institutions’ offer a wide range of benefits to encourage employees to bike to work. For example, the World Bank offers a wide range of benefits to their cycling community and has the largest number of employees (600) engaged in the initiative. The World Bank tends to the needs of bike commuters by offering plentiful bike parking (700 spots), including in their secure garage; Corporate Capital Bikeshare memberships (of which 350 employees take advantage); and showering and changing facilities. The World Bank also offers a relative disincentive to motor vehicle drivers; in a city where many employees can park their cars at a discount or for free, the World Bank charges market rates for garage parking, perhaps encouraging employees to think twice about driving to work. (Handsfield, Will. (2014). Congress Gives Itself More Free Parking Than Its Own Rules Allow. Streetsblog USA. Retrieved from: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/24/congress-gives-itself-more-free-parking-than-its-own-rules-allow/). The World Bank also promotes cycling by engaging in a week-long promotion of National Bike to Work Day. The week-long activities include a pre-event ride for World Bank employees on the day before National Bike to Work Day. See Table X for the full list of World Bank commuter bike benefits. (World Bank Group. 2016. Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report).

While the World Bank possibly offers the broadest range of bicycle commuter benefits, the study area also benefits from robust bicycle commuter benefits programs at the U.S. Department of State and GW. The State Department has a free bicycle loaner program available to employees and contractors for use during the day, which appears similar to the Priority Bicycle program offered to hotel guests at The River Inn (Foggy Bottom). (http://www.theriverinn.com/wellness-fitness.aspx Accessed 5/1/16). The State Department also offers a commuter subsidy in the form of a monthly stipend – one benefit of its commuter bicycling program of which 365 employees were recently signed up. (U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30; Accessed 5/1/16).

With nearly 500 bike parking spots already and 225 additional spots associated with pending development sites, GW appears poised to surpass the World Bank for the most bike parking associated with an anchor institution in the study area. In addition to the plentiful bike parking at GW (broadened also by the presence of a multitude of Capital Bikeshare stations), the University tends to the needs of faculty and staff commuting by bike by availing the shower and changing facilities at the Lerner Health and Wellness Center to those who are not otherwise members of the gym for the bargain price of $50/semester. Lastly, university police offer a bike registration program for those who want the extra assurance that their bike can be tracked if necessary. (The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 Accessed 5/1/16).

For the full list of anchor institutions and the ways they encourage their employees to bike to work, see Appendix A.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Field Review

Two field reviews were conducted within the study area to evaluate existing roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure conditions that could be impacting current and proposed bicycle ridership. The field reviews were conducted during the morning (7AM – 9AM), Mid-day (11AM-1PM), and evening (4PM-6PM) peak periods. The following field reviews were conducted:

  • Windshield Field Review – conducted to review bicycle racks and parking within the study area.
  • Walking Field Review – conducted to evaluate pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 below outline the windshield and walking field reviews including both methodology and findings.

3.1 Windshield Field Review

The windshield field review was conducted by car. “Windshield” reviews are done while driving, therefore permitting faster travel speed, but only allowing one to two attributes to be reviewed. For purposes of this study, the windshield field review was conducted to review the bicycle racks and parking within the study area. Figure 7 shows a map of the bicycle rack locations within the study area (identified during the windshield review).

As shown in Figure 7, a majority of bicycle racks are located within the northeast quadrant of the study area. Note, however, that Figure 7 does not account for the capacity of bike parking at each location. In addition to the personal bike racks shown, Capital Bikeshare locations are provided throughout the study area. (See Figure 7).

3.2 Walking Field Review

The walking field review was conducted by three evaluators who utilized an inventory rubric to evaluate and note the presence and condition of the existing pedestrian facilities, road attributes, bicycle facility attributes, and transit features. The inventory rubric was developed based on a concept created by the University of Maryland Urban Planning Department. (Clifton, K. et al. 2004. Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool. Retrieved from: http://activelivingresearch.org/pedestrian-environment-data-scan-peds-tool).

As the study area spans across a large space, the walking field review was narrowed down to specific roadways that were likely to need improvements or were already being proposed for improvement. In order to determine these roadways, the MoveDC Plan (District Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan) was reviewed to determine the locations of proposed bicycle infrastructure. Based on this review the following roadways were evaluated: 21st Street NW, 22nd Street NW, G Street NW, F Street NW, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and Virginia Avenue NW. Figure 8 illustrates the locations of the existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure, as provided in the MoveDC Plan.
Based on the walking field review, the following was concluded:

  • Roadways were observed to have posted speed limits of 15mph in and around The George Washington University, while the surrounding roadways operated at 25mph. In addition, while one-way roadways have been known to promote higher roadway speeds, vehicles observed within the field appeared to be traveling at slower speeds, which could be advantageous when considering roadway redesign for bicycle infrastructure.
  • Roadways observed were designated primarily as three-lane one-way roadways (21st ST NW, 22nd ST NW, G ST NW, and F ST NW), with the outer lanes (left and right lanes) serving as on-street parking in varying locations. Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW both serve as two-way roadways, with Pennsylvania Avenue NW operating as a six-lane divided roadway and Virginia Avenue NW operating as a four-lane divided roadway.
  • Limited to no bicycle infrastructure was provided along any of the roadways, with the exception of a few bicycle racks and Capital Bikeshare stations located within pedestrian walking areas; however, with limited infrastructure present, opportunities for roadway redevelopment become much more practical and easier to implement.
  • Pennsylvania Avenue NW and Virginia Avenue NW serve as diagonal roadways within the study area, which create complex and problematic intersections for both roadway and bicycle users.

Overall, based on the two field reviews, the study area was observed to have substantial personal bike parking and Capital Bikeshare stations; however, the existing bicycle infrastructure provided on the evaluated streets is limited, but has the potential for significant improvements for enhanced bicycle facilities.

Figure 7
Figure 8
Crash Analysis

A crash analysis, which included a review of crash data, was conducted to evaluate the potential bicycle safety deficiencies that occur within the study area.

4.1 Procedure

Bicycle crash data for the most recent available six years (January 2010 through June 2015) were obtained from DC Open Data.15 The crash data were evaluated to identify crash locations and patterns, severity of crashes, and likely causes for crashes. The findings, including summaries of the crash data analysis, are provided in the following sections.

4.2 Crash Data Analysis

4.2.1 Crashes by Year
A total of 194 bicycle crashes occurred within the study area from January 2010 to June 2015, as shown in Figure 9. A total of 121 visible injuries and zero fatalities occurred within the study area. The number of crashes increased between 2010 and 2012. It should be noted, that while the number of crashes appears to decrease from 2014 to 2015, the data collected for the crash analysis only included data through June 2015; therefore, the data may be relative to previous years if the remaining data from 2015 was included. (See Figure 9).

4.2.2 Crashes by Day
Figure 10 displays the number of crashes that occurred by day of week. Although crashes occurred on each day, the highest frequency of crashes occurred on Tuesday (21%), Friday (21%), and Thursday (17%). (See Figure 10).

4.2.3 Crashes by Street Location
As shown in Figure 11: 11th Street (12%), followed by Pennsylvania Avenue (8%), Connecticut Avenue (8%), 18th Street (7%), L Street (7%), and 19th Street (6%); the remaining crash locations each accounted for less than 5% of the overall crashes. Higher crash numbers may be associated with higher concentrations of cycling activity. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. However, no data were available to adjust for exposure and calculate crash rates. (See Figure 11).

Figure 12 shows a heat map of the bicycle crashes within our study area. As shown in Figure 12, the majority of crashes that occurred were located in the northeast region of the study area. As already noted, the frequency of crashes within this region may be due to the fact that Connecticut Avenue NW, New Hampshire Avenue NW, and Pennsylvania Avenue NW have a higher bicycle ridership, and not necessarily related to dangerous conditions present within this area. (See Figure 12).

4.2.4 Crashes by Roadway Condition
Figure 13 indicates the number of crashes by roadway surface condition. The majority (86%) of crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. Wet conditions accounted for 9% of crashes. (See Figure 13).

Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 12
Figure 12
Figure 13
Survey

5.1 Methodology

A survey was conducted about bicycle infrastructure and cycling in the study area. The survey was modeled after existing surveys on this topic. The majority of the survey questions were taken from the 2014 study, “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.,” by Chris Monsere et al and published by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities. (Monsere, C. et al. 2014. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. National Institute for Transportation and Communities. Retrieved from: http://www.ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ProtectedBikeLanes_NITC-June2014.pdf). That study presented findings from surveys and other research about the use, perceptions, benefits and impacts of protected bike lanes in five U.S. cities. Other consulted work included Jennifer Dill’s 2012 study, “Four Types of Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” (Dill, J. and N. McNeil. 2013. Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research Record (2387): 129-138.). The 2014 MoveDC Plan, by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), was consulted during the selection of survey locations and development of questions about streets and bicycle facilities. (District Department of Transportation. 2014. MoveDC. District of Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.wemovedc.org/).

The survey was posted online using Google Forms. The mission of the survey was to assess the cycle-friendliness of the study area, find out who travels in the study area, and to determine whether and what infrastructure improvements would encourage more cycling in the study area. The survey included questions about perceptions of bicycle infrastructure and safety as well as questions about support for cycling and bicycle infrastructure in the study area.

At the top of the survey page, viewers were given information about the purpose of the survey and the odds of winning one of four $50 gift cards. Viewers were then informed that their consent was voluntary, that results would be confidential, and that Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board panelists could be contacted if there were any questions or concerns about the survey.

At the beginning of the survey, study participants were shown a map of the study area and asked whether or not they lived, worked or traveled in the study area. Participants who answered “no” for this question were branched out of the survey. Participants who continued the survey were then asked about demographic information including gender, age, and student status. Participants were also asked about their reasons for travel in the area, trip origin, modes used for travel, bicycle usage, Capital Bikeshare usage, and attitudes towards cycling on roadways. Participants who replied “no” when asked if they biked in the study area were branched past questions about biking in the study area.

The section of the survey about biking in the study area included questions about the importance of factors influencing route choice. Factors included directness of route, the presence of different types of bicycle infrastructure, hills, traffic, and other road conditions. Participants were also asked about their experience with collisions and near collisions with various types of obstacles while bicycling in the study area.
The subsequent section of the survey asked participants about their perceptions of safety and bicycling in the study area. Participants were asked about their support for bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes, both in terms of general support for the facility type in the study area, and support for the installation of bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully protected bike lanes on specific streets in the area. Participants were also asked whether or not they would bike more if the aforementioned facilities were installed on these streets.

At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide their email address in order to be entered into a drawing for one of four $50 Amazon.com gift cards. Participants were also asked whether they wished to be contacted for a more in depth survey of their bicycle habits and opinions.

The survey was distributed using several different methods. Three samples were obtained using three identical copies of the same online Google Form. For the first sample, to accompany in-person distribution of survey information, a postcard was created that included a web address and QR code linking to the survey along with general information about the study. Approximately 1,500 postcards were handed out at 15 crosswalks, intersections, and other natural stopping points in the study area. Postcards were handed out on weekdays during morning (7:00AM-9:30AM), Mid-Day (11:00AM-1:00PM) and evening (4:00PM-7:00PM) rush hours. The survey was conducted over a two week period between March 7, 2016 and March 23, 2016. Besides the sample that was obtained through postcard distribution in the study area, two additional samples were obtained online. One sample included the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) Twitter list, and the other was based on social media and outreach to bicycling and other groups in and around the study area.

5.2 Survey Results and Analysis

5.2.1 Respondent Information
A grand total of 221 respondents elected to take the survey either from the URL provided on the survey card, through an online distribution, or through a link provided on WABA’s employee Twitter feed. A total of 191 respondents said they traveled through or in the study area for any activity, and therefore were able to complete the entire survey. Those that indicated they did not travel within or to the study area were sent to the end of the survey and were told that they would not be included in this study. These respondents were still eligible to win a gift card as compensation for completing the survey.

The most common age cohort among the 191 respondents who were qualified to complete the survey was the 25 to 34 group with about 50% of all respondents. The second and third most common age groups were 18-24 and 35-44 year-olds, with 16% and 14% of total respondents, respectively. Two respondents were younger than 18 years old, and both indicated that they were students. It should be noted that while we did not specifically target young people or students for our data, choosing survey distribution locations in a neighborhood with The George Washington University as the main anchor institution meant that a significant number of respondents identified as students: 24% of respondents identified as students. Predictably so, the vast majority of these respondents were in the 18-24 year-old age cohort. The gender split for all respondents was roughly 63% to 37% male to female, which means that males were slightly over-represented in this survey relative to the demographics of the neighborhood. 68% said they owned a working bike at home.

The vast majority (65%) of respondents said they use Metro to travel to the study area. In addition, personal bike, foot and Capital Bikeshare were modes used by 47%, 50% and 21% of respondents, respectively. Because respondents could select more than one mode of travel, data from this question does not add to 100% (See Figure 14 for more detail).

There were 112 respondents (59%) who said they biked in the study area for some reason. Among both those who used a personal bike and those who used Capital Bikeshare to bike in the study area, the majority were men. Men made up a little over 70% of personal bike-in-the-study-area respondents, while men made up about 80% of Capital Bikeshare-in-the-study-area respondents. This supports other data that suggest that bikeshare users are predominantly male and that cyclist commuters in general are primarily male, but as a lesser percent than bikeshare users. (See Figure 15).

5.2.2 Frequency of Bike Travel
When asked how frequently and how far one rides his or her bike, the results to both questions resulted in “U” shaped data, with many respondents saying they never rode and many saying they rode a bike more than seven times per week. (See Figure 16).Likewise, 24% of respondents said they never rode a bike when asked how many miles per week they rode, however 17% said they rode more than 50 miles per week. The WABA respondents, who rode more frequently and longer distances on average than the rest of the sample, skewed the results in these two categories upwards. (See Figure 17).

71% of survey respondents did not have a Capital Bikeshare membership, and of those that did, the vast majority (26%) had an annual membership. This is most likely due to the fact that tourists, who are more common users of the 24-hour and 3-day membership options, were not targeted in this survey.

Cyclists in the study area who use personal bikes were more likely to ride more than seven days per week than Capital Bikeshare riders, and also more likely to ride more than 20-50 and 50+ miles per week. (See Figure 18).

5.2.3 Cyclist Types
Each respondent who reported riding a bike was classified using Roger Geller’s typology distinguishing between either “Strong and Fearless”: able to ride in all conditions and roadway types, “Enthused and Confident”: confident riding a bike, but preferring to do so on dedicated bike infrastructure, “Interested but Concerned”: wanting to bike more but concerned about one or more aspect of cycling, and “No-Way No-How”: those who were unwilling or unable to ride a bike. The results shown in Figure 19 differ from national level results, where “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists make up roughly 60% of the population. This inconsistency could be explained by the 27 WABA cyclist respondents, who were either “Strong and Fearless” or “Enthused and Confident,” with none being “Interested, but concerned.” It could also be explained by relatively high overall cycling levels in D.C, and/or the relatively young age of most of the respondents. Young people who cycle may be more confident cycling in the city and physically fit enough for it as well. It should also be noted that 82% of “Strong and Fearless” cyclists in this survey were male, which is in line with national-level findings. Also of note: the gender spread of the “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists was far more equal to the overall population than any of the other groups measured, with 54% being female and 46% being male. Females were best represented in this data under the “No-way No-How” type of cyclist, with 65% of this cyclist group identifying as female. (See Figure 19; Figure 20).

5.2.4 Interested but Concerned
The analysis focused on the “Interested, but Concerned” (IBC) group because IBC cyclists are not cycling much now, but are interested in becoming regular cyclists.

Most IBC cyclists (67%) traveled to the study area for work. 43% said they use foot as a means of transportation to/from or in the study area. 22% said they take Metro to/from or in the study area. Because the survey asked respondents where they came from prior to entering the study area, distance traveled data was available for this, and other groups. The IBC cyclists traveled on average 4.39 miles to the study area, with 63% traveling 5 miles or less to the study area. 54% of IBC cyclists owned a bike in working condition at home, while only slightly less than the 68% that owned a working bike in the total survey population. Travel distance to the study area and availability of a working bicycle are not barriers for a majority of IBC cyclists. The study additionally looked at the perceptions of bike infrastructure among IBC cyclists and other groups in the survey.

Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Survey Participant Perceptions

5.2.5 Perceptions of Infrastructure

The survey asked respondents to assess three types of proposed bike infrastructure in the study area based on proposals from the MoveDC bike master plan. The three types of infrastructure were bike lanes, protected bike lanes and fully separated bike lanes. Under each question concerning the particular type of infrastructure, a photo example was given to reduce any errors or false response. See Figure 23 for examples.

For those who rode in the study area, those who did not ride a bike and the IBC cyclists, the protected bike lane was the facility treatment that had the most support. Despite differences in support by the three groups, all three groups gave all three treatment types an average support score of at least 4 out of 5 points. There was moderate agreement among all three groups that there were many conflicts between cyclists and a vehicle or a piece of the built environment in the study area. Those who do not ride were slightly more likely to agree with this statement. Only those who rode in the study area said that they agreed that cycling in the study area was safe. (See Figure 24 and Figure 25 for more detail). It is important to note that among all three groups, there was clear disagreement with the statement that the study area had adequate bike infrastructure, with average scores between 2.2 and 2.5 out of 5.

5.2.6 Desired Locations of Bike Facilities

Respondents from all three cyclist types preferred some level of facility on Pennsylvania Ave. NW in the study area. IBC cyclists and those who not cycle in the study area said the presence of both protected bike lanes or fully separated bike lanes on this street would encourage them to ride more often in the study area. For those who did bike in the study area, any type of facility on Pennsylvania Avenue NW would induce more cycling from this group. 21st Street NW was also a street that would induce cycling from all three groups if facilities were added. (See Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28 for more detail).

Results show that protected bike lanes generally would encourage all three groups to ride more often on most streets. Support is even greater than for the fully separated bike lane, which provides the highest level of separation. Among those who bike (and are assumed to be familiar with the existing roadway configurations and facilities) in the study area, protected bike lanes would be more likely to induce more cycling on streets such as Pennsylvania and Virginia Ave, while bike lanes without protection were more likely to produce this effect on streets such as 21st and 22nd (and also G Street.) This is most likely because Pennsylvania and Virginia Avenues are wide, multi-lane arterials with fast speeds that would be better suited for protected treatments, while 21st and 22nd are one-lane, one-way streets that have slower speeds and more frequent intersections and would be better suited for a bike lane treatment. It could be that existing cyclists could judge which types of facilities might “fit” better on each street based on their experience cycling elsewhere. In most cases, those who did not bike and the IBC cyclists were more likely to favor protected bike lanes on streets listed in this survey.

5.2.7 Overall Support

Overall, there was robust support for the construction of all three types of facilities when all responses were taken together. Here overall support for protected bike lanes is higher than for fully separated bike lanes and standard bike lanes. This was inconsistent with the expected levels of support for the three treatment types. The “Strong and Fearless” are likely willing to ride in any roadway condition with no issues and may even feel trapped by riding in a fully separated facility, preferring the open road to a narrower bike lane with fewer opportunities to pass slower cyclists. Among different types of cyclists the “Strong and Fearless” showed the highest percentage of disagreement towards fully separated bike lanes. Despite this, support among all groups and for all facility types was strong in the study area, suggesting that a demand exists here for better bike infrastructure. (See Figure 29; Figure 30).

The vast majority of respondents who cycle in the study area say they consider the most direct route as most important when traveling by bike in the study area. Second and third to this was presence of a bike lane and being separated, or avoiding car traffic. This further supports the claim that bike facilities are wanted and that cyclists desire a fast and direct way to transit the study area. In some places, respondents also wish to do so by avoiding car traffic. Interestingly, avoiding stop signs or traffic lights were the least important factor for cyclists when riding in the study area. This should be taken into consideration when designing facilities there. Also, it was found that most cyclists rarely cycled on sidewalks in the study area. (See Figure 31; Figure 33).

Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 31
Figure 33
Policy Recommendations

Based on the results of the survey, field review, and crash analysis, we offer the following recommendations to guide implementation of bike infrastructure:

6.1 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

The roadway operates as a six-lane divided arterial that provides limited bicycle infrastructure and has a high density of crashes along the roadway section. In addition, based on the survey results, all three surveyed groups indicated strong support for a protected bike facility on this street. Therefore, we are recommending modifying the roadway laneage from a six-lane divided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane in each direction), thus providing a minimum of 11 additional feet in each direction to accommodate either a cycle track or protected bike lane. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.2 F Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. There was mixed support for the three different facilities, however, protected facilities were more favored. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate a protected cycle facility. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.3 G Street NW

The roadway operates as three-lane one-way arterial that provides on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadway provides limited to no on-street the corridor; however, the roadway doesn’t have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. Opinions for bike facilities on G Street was similar to F Street, however those who cycled in the study area were more likely to support an unprotected bike lane. It is recommended to modifying the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a wide two-lane one-way roadway (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate at a minimum a bike lane with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

6.4 21st Street NW/22nd Street NW

These roadways operate as three-lane one-way arterials that provide on-street parking on the outer lanes. The roadways provide limited to no on-street bicycle infrastructure; however, the roadways do not have a high occurrence of bicycle crashes. The majority of respondents from all three groups indicated bike lanes on these streets would encourage more cycling. It is recommended to modify the roadway laneage from a three-lane one-way roadway section to a two-lane one-way roadway section (i.e. removing one travel lane), thus providing a minimum of 10 additional feet to accommodate bicycle lanes with painted separation. It should be noted that further engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine if adequate right-of-way and spacing is available in order to provide this recommendation.

Appendix A: Anchor Institutions
Anchor Institution Support for Commuter Bicycling Program
The World Bank Group (20) 600 / 10000 employees bike to work
700 bike parking spots (secure garage parking and outdoor racks)
Offers corporate Capital Bikeshare membership to employees (350 members)
Offers 5 bike repair stations
Promotes Bike-to-Work Day with weeklong activity and day before “Ride to Work Day”
Offers 2 bike safety classes
Offers shower and changing facilities, lockers for clothes storage
Provides disincentive for motor vehicle use by charging market rates for motor vehicle parking
Partnerships with local bike shops offer discount deals, bike repair workshops
U.S. Department of State (21) Bike Commuter Program (365 employees signed up)
Free loaner bike program for employees and contractors
Bike repair stipends / subsidy for commuters
Bike racks
Commuter showers and lockers
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations around the Department
The George Washington University (22) Bike Parking: “Nearly 500” spots, 225 proposed, on street and in buildings
Capital Bikeshare: several bike docking stations on campus
Employee access to health and wellness center’s shower/changing facilities for $50/semester (for nonmembers)
Bike registration
International Monetary Fund (23) Bike racks
Showers “nearby and in the fitness centers”
U.S. Department of the Interior (24) Complementary shower/changing facilities (10) and lockers
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (25) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
U.S. General Services Administration (26) Offers Capital Bikeshare membership for employees
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (27) $125 taxable benefit to reimburse for costs of bike-to-work expenses
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (28) Bike parking; Capital Bikeshare onsite
American Pharmacists Association (29) Bike racks
The Red Cross (30) Bike racks

20: The World Bank Group. 2016. (Response to research questionnaire provided for the purposes of this report.)
21: U.S. Department of State 2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/233777.pdf, p. 13, 29, and 30 (accessed 5/1/16)
22: The George Washington University, Division of Operations, Transportation and Parking Services’ Bicycle webpage https://transportation.gwu.edu/bicycles-0 (accessed 5/1/16)
23: International Monetary Fund recruitment (“Other Benefits and Services”) webpage https://www.imf.org/external/np/adm/rec/workenv/facserv.htm#5 (accessed 5/1/16)
24: U.S. Department of the Interior document “2014 Federal Bike to Work Challenge Department of the Interior Results with Bureaus” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/transportation/upload/DOI_results_bureau.pdf, p. 7 (accessed 5/1/16)
25: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
26: U.S. Office of Personnel Management online photo gallery caption associated with Capital Bikeshare Partnership. http://www.opm.gov/news/media-center/mediacenterphotos.aspx?vid=6804 (accessed 5/1/16)
27: The National Academies “2014 Benefits at a Glance” document. http://www.nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_053295.pdf, p. 6 (accessed 5/1/16)
28: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts visitor directions webpage. http://www.kennedy-center.org/visitor/directions.html (accessed 5/1/16)
29: American Pharmacists Association webpage on organization’s commitment to environment. https://www.pharmacist.com/commitment-environment (accessed 5/1/16)
30: “Miss with a Mission” Blog, with photo of bike racks at Red Cross’ square. https://misswithamission.wordpress.com/ (accessed 5/1/16)

Download the Complete Report
UAP MURP Transportation Studio 2016
MURP Contact Information

Leigh Bower (Blacksburg)
Graduate Student Coordinator
leighb14@vt.edu
(540) 231-5485

Myriam Lechuga (D.C.)
Graduate Student Coordinator
mlechuga@vt.edu
(703) 706-8111

Tom Sanchez (UAP Chair) tom.sanchez@vt.edu | (540) 231-5425
Yang Zhang (MURP Coordinator) yz@vt.edu | (540) 231-1128
Ralph Hall (PUA/EPP Coordinator) rphall@vt.edu | (540) 231-7332

Security Code:
security code
Please enter the security code:

Submit
Apply to the MURP Program
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Master’s program requires applicants to submit an online application form, application fee, official transcripts of previous academic work, personal statement, three letters of recommendation, and resume. In addition, all applicants who did not earn an undergraduate degree from a university in the US must submit GRE scores, and all international applicants whose first language is not English must submit TOEFL scores. Note that the Graduate School requires a minimum cumulative grade point average (GPA) for admission of 3.0 or better. Applicants with GPAs below this may be qualified depending on professional experience and other accomplishments.
APPLICATION DEADLINES
The Master’s program accepts applications on a rolling basis, with the following deadlines:

Fall Admission – August 1
Spring Admission – January 1

However, note that applicants who want to be considered for financial aid MUST have their application completed by March 1 for the Fall admission, or October 1 for the Spring admission.

> HOW TO APPLY TO THE VIRGINIA TECH GRADUATE SCHOOL
> INFO SESSIONS AND UPCOMING EVENTS

REQUEST INFORMATION

A REGIONAL COMMUNITY  ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES

A REGIONAL COMMUNITY  ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES

A REGIONAL COMMUNITY  ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES

BLACKSBURG

WASHINGTON, DC

RICHMOND

BLACKSBURG

WASHINGTON, DC

RICHMOND

BLACKSBURG

WASHINGTON, DC

RICHMOND