Finding your way around the DC metropolitan area – by bike.

 
(Click the image for a route mapped out from our offices to the White House)

Finding your way around by bike is not necessarily the same as by car.  For most of us that ride, finding the safest and most comfortable way to go from A to B is more important than finding the most direct way. Personally, I would rather ride 30 minutes on a separated bike path with minimal traffic interaction than make the same trip by riding 15 minutes on a busy street with no bike lane, no shoulder and hectic, stressful intersections.  Traditional route finding software has a hard time understanding and accounting for this cyclist safety factor, so common online mapping tools like Google Maps and Mapquest are not very useful to cyclists.  

There is a new route finding tool that is attempting to pick the best routes for cyclists, including prioritizing bike paths, bike lanes, and streets with low traffic volumes.  The tool covers Washington D.C. as well as all surrounding counties, and is up and running at http://www.ridethecity.com/dc#.  I’ve been testing the tool, as have some of my cycling friends, and we all love how easy it is to drag the icons onto the map for the origin and destination points, and that the route, mileage, estimated time, and elevation gain are all calculated so quickly.  In addition to showing the route on the map, a cue sheet is provided which categorizes each segment (bike path, bike lane, etc) and can even be sent directly to your cell phone for referencing outdoors.  

It’s important, however, to remember that computers are not cyclists, so the route suggested by the tool might not be the one that you prefer.  We did get some questionable results from our tests, even when the “safer route” is requested (which is what I recommend sticking to).  The upside is that the tool will get more accurate over time.  Users can rate the routes and segments for safety on a scale of 1 to 7, and the system will use these ratings to prioritize favored segments (or vice versa) for all future users.      

Technology can be great, if used correctly, and the new bike routing tool is something that could be very useful to the cycling community, especially if we use it wisely, and if we help the program get smarter by rating the routes and segments we know well.  And having a local map in your back pocket is always a good backup!

Chris Eatough is the program manager for BikeArlington and an avid cyclist (commuting, mountain biking, and just riding for fun).

Comments

[Chris Eatough]

True, for that kind of short term info, a regional bike forum would work well. Yes, we have one now! We just got the BikeArlington bike forum up and running here: www.BikeArlingtonforum.com. Once the local cycling community knows about this and partipation increases, we will have a place to post questions, participate in discussions and share our collective cycling knowledge. I actually posted a question about snow on the CCT last week (and yes, there is still some now and icy spots on that trail - I rode it this morning).

[SJE]

Route maps are great, but can they accomodate all the routes that get closed by the snow. The CCT is, according to reports, still a disaster in the MD section.

[Chris Eatough]

Allen and Geof.
Thanks for your comments and additional insight on this topic.
Avid cyclists such as you with extensive local knowledge will no doubt find some holes in a new automated route finding system. It's always going to be tough to beat years of experience out on the roads and trails. I think the potential is that the tool improves with the ratings and comments of kwowledgeable users, and hopefully your comments can be entered and put to good use. The Arlington Cemetary fault in particular seems like it would be an easy one to fix. Over time the information and routes will become more useful, particularly to those new to the area, or unfamiliar with preferred bike routes.
Allen, as for my personal riding preferences, I am quite comfortable riding in the DC urban core, and have ridden my bicycle in many situations all over the world. I do find some routes more comfortable and enjoyable than others, however, and generally speaking my perferred routes are when sufficient space or even separation is provided for cyclists, traffic speeds are low, and traffic volumes are light. I think this is true for most cyclists, and is likely to be the basis of any bicycle route finding tool.

[Geof Gee]

Roughly speaking, I don't find the utility as bad as Allen. Although I think that there are some fundamental problems that should be addressed.

(1) Riding on a MUP, bike lane, or some other facility is not universally _safer_ than alternative routes on the ordinary streets. At the very least, the program suggests that it is safer which I feel can only inhibit cyclists from fully using their bikes for fun and or transportation. Note that safer is different from whether riding on a MUP is more satisfying or enjoyable. But I think mixing the two concepts is a bad idea.

(2) The utility will direct cyclists to ride contra-flow in certain circumstances to reach a facility or maximize facility use. For example, coming from Lacey Woods Park and heading to the Ballston Metro, it sends the cyclist the Custis Trail followed by the Fairfax Blvd access trail. By doing so, it encourages the cyclist to ride on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic. There is a reasonable alternative where a cyclist crosses I-66 at George Mason and then proceeds to Fairfax Blvd on the south side.

(3) I think Allen's final point about pedestrian-style street crossings is right on target. Some of the paths it directs cyclists to are really designed for pedestrians as well making the "safe/safer" designation rather dubious.

[Allen Muchnick]

Thank you for this post, Chris. I wholeheartedly agree on the need to develop effective bike-routing websites.

Your comment, however, that you [a world-class bike racer, no less] personally "would rather ride 30 minutes on a separated bike path with minimal traffic interaction than make the same trip by riding 15 minutes on a busy street with no bike lane, no shoulder and hectic, stressful intersections" strongly suggests that you *desperately* need to take a full-blown traffic cycling course, for both personal and professional reasons.

*Any* *semi-competent* transportation bicyclist who does not have an irrational fear of city traffic should readily be able to travel stress free throughout the DC urban core without using any "separated bike path" or requiring a "bike lane or shoulder" on a "busy street".

I do not offer this feedback as a personal attack. Your apparent fear of traffic is commonplace and fairly normal, and most experienced transportation bicyclists (myself included) have experienced it initially. I'm merely pointing out that the skills and confidence to bike safely nearly everywhere can be readily acquired through a fairly brief and inexpensive traffic-cycling course. Bicyclists simply don't know that they don't now about effective bicycle driving until they finally learn it from a competent and experienced instructor.

Furthermore, once bicyclists discover (to cite your example) that they can make a bike trip that formerly took them 30 minutes in only 15 minutes, they are far more likely to bike for transportation more often.

At present, I find "Ride the City" to be pretty awful. For trips between my home (near 2500 Columbia Pike) and the White House, it invariably routes me through Arlington National Cemetery in both directions, although all westbound bicycle access through the Cemetery ended about a decade ago.

Moreover, the route used through Arlington National Cemetery is inaccessible and prohibited to bicyclists, not the sole permitted and signed bike route.

In addition, the circuitous routing I was provided through the National Mall, the Ellipse, Fort Myer, and elsewhere in downtown DC and South Arlington is needlessly complicated and confusing, largely unsigned, sometimes closed to bicycling, and includes several dangerous and possibly impractical and/or infeasible road crossings.

Finally, I've found very little difference in the routing provided under the "safer", "safe", and "direct" options.

I'm sure that many novice bicyclists will find this tool welcome and somewhat useful, but it's virtually unusable for me, and the current routing is likely to be infeasible, confusing, and needlessly complicated and to require obscure, slow, and hazardous pedestrian-style street crossings.