Where's the 15th Street contraflow lane?

Bicycling

by David Alpert • August 6, 2009 10:37 am

In February, DDOT decided to experimentally modify 15th Street, NW between Massachusetts Avenue and Florida Avenue to include the city's first protected bicycle lane. That lane would let cyclists ride south along 15th, opposite the flow of traffic. Cyclists could also ride northbound in a regular bicycle lane. This is a cheap, quick change that DDOT could make with some paint, quick curbs, and a few signs. It's a great opportunity to test out a protected bike lane on a street easily able to handle it. However, DDOT still hasn't set it up. Why?

NYC's Gansevoort Plaza. Photo from Streetsblog.

A protected bicycle lane (sometimes called a "cycle track") puts bicycles between the parked cars and the sidewalk, rather than between the parked cars and the regular car lanes. It makes cycling much more appealing for those less comfortable riding as fast as traffic or intimidated by the cars that often pass too close, honk, and otherwise harass cyclists. 15th Street has four northbound travel lanes that funnel down to one past Florida Avenue. There isn't enough traffic to use up four lanes, and DDOT planners feel that three lanes, plus the contraflow protected bike lane, is plenty.

When Janette Sadik-Khan took the reins at New York City's DOT, the agency quickly moved to try many experimental, quick traffic changes. They added plazas and makeshift street furniture in some large intersections, turning huge and underused expanses of pavement into pleasant places to sit. They added a median on a busy and dangerous avenue in Brooklyn. They built several real, separated bike lanes on major avenues, and even closed part of Broadway to traffic. Few of these involved major, federally funded street reconstructions. Often, some oddly-shaped concrete blocks, temporary curbs, signs, and sometimes a few signals were all it took. There wasn't a multi-year study producing a glossy report; they just tried the change. If the design didn't work out, they could remove it. But so far, they've worked very well.

Proposed configuration for 15th Street.

Under the current proposal, the contraflow lane would be on the west side of the street. New signs would warn drivers to look for cyclists as they turn left. Cyclists would be able to proceed through the intersection when the adjacent pedestrians have a "walk" sign, removing the need for special bicycle signals. According to DDOT planners, they now suggest improving upon this design by widening the protected contraflow lane to 8 feet, while making the northbound lane into a shared lane ("sharrows") between cars and bikes. A wider contraflow lane would allow bikes to pass each other southbound, and provide more room for them to avoid doors. Meanwhile, three travel lanes is plenty for the current traffic even if some bicycles are also using the rightmost lane. DPW has assured DDOT that this configuation wouldn't pose a problem for street cleaning.

As with the street's northern end, DDOT hasn't moved ahead with a simple, cheap, and quick improvement despite an approved plan to do so. It's not an issue of budget. Whether this is coming from the engineering department, the top management, or even the office of the Mayor, the agency simply has not yet adopted the sort of quick experimentation culture that has been so successful at NYC DOT.

Likewise, Councilmember Tommy Wells and many others are interested in trying protected bike lanes on M Street, SE and SW. Like 15th, it's a wide street with more lanes than necessary for the traffic, while cyclists have few good routes. DDOT considered moving ahead and trying a lane, but ultimately decided to contract out a more detailed study. That will just take time and money, with which we could instead just try it out. Actual real-world data is more valuable than anything consultants standing at street corners counting vehicles could ever collect.

The best way to try new things, like protected bike lanes, is to just put them in and see what happens. Some think protected bike lanes will actually be more dangerous. I don't think so, but if we try it out, we can find out for ourselves in plenty of time to build them in, or take them out, of longer-term plans. DDOT is working hard on a lot of great projects, but most of these will take years to plan, fund and implement. We shouldn't have to wait that long to try out some low-hanging fruit and make streets safer and better for all users.

19 comments — Share	— tags: 15th Street, 15th Street bike lane, bike lanes, DC, DDOT, M Street

DDOT to start 15th Street contraflow bike lane next week (Oct 23, 2009)
New Hampshire Avenue contraflow design (Nov 13, 2008)
DDOT proposes new option with cycle track for 15th Street (Nov 10, 2008)
Are protected bike lanes actually more dangerous? (Jan 14, 2008)
DDOT may restore two-way traffic on 15th Street (Jan 10, 2008)

Comments

the big selling point for protected lanes is that they massively increase the number of people who will ride bikes, and they will be used by so many of the people who avoid the other bike facilities - women, people with kids, the elderly, inexperienced riders, etc. the point is that we must provide facilities that will be used by everyone, otherwise there will be no progress in change of mode-share.

More people biking will actually reduce accidents involving bikes and that improvment in bike safety creates a virtous cycle of improvement. You end up with increasing numbers of people using those protected bike lanes. The safety gained in numbers of riders is orders of magnitude more powerful than any safety disadvantages of the actual bike track design, but of course there are many ways to refine the bike tracks over time. These poeople will demand wider protected lanes, and since there are fewer people driving there will be less space needed for cars. This is how it's possible for copenhagen to take away auto parking spots every year and perpetually widen the bike tracks.

by lee on Aug 6, 2009 11:01 am

Do you really think that we should just try first and study later? That's a very different claim from "we waste time studying things that we already know to be true" or "studies are often used as stalling devices."

Let's put it this way. If I were to make the argument "We should allow cars to travel on one of the two sidewalks on each street. I predict it won't really affect pedestrian life, as every street will still have pedestrian space on the other side, and it will reduce congestion by making it easier to drive. Let's just put itin and see what happens, as a study will just take more time that could be used gathering more valuable real-world data," that would be roundly rejected here. And rightfully so! But an argument that testing through implementation is better than studying the impact would imply the opposite.

What is great about Sadik-Khan is that she was able to find things she could do quickly without having to study at all. If we really believed that separated bike lanes were very dangerous, we wouldn't say try it and see. That would be risking people's lives for no reason. A willingness to do a pilot without a study follows from a belief that we already know the answer and therefore shouldn't have to wait.

D.C. should do fewer studies, yes. But saying that pilot programs are simply better versions of studies isn't a rule you'd actually want to enforce uniformly.

by Noah Kazis on Aug 6, 2009 11:20 am

We should try out things that we strongly believe to be a good idea, and that don't require substantial changes. Putting cars on sidewalks would require reconstructing the sidewalk in a more major way, plus the planners don't think that's a good idea. The planners do think this is a good idea. If DDOT's planners came up with something cheap and fast that I didn't think was a good idea, I wouldn't have a problem with them trying it out.

Plus, the study isn't going to tell us how safe these are. Consultants can't tell that. Probably all it will tell us is whether the lane would change vehicular Level of Service, and how much, to assure critics that this won't hurt cars that much.

by David Alpert on Aug 6, 2009 11:24 am

I agree strongly with David on this, although the point is well-made that we also don't want to experiment with people's lives.

It's often discussed that government has a hard time experimenting, because failure (however defined) is even more punished in the public than the private sector. Yet the flip failure -- to innovate, to do things better -- is rarely taken into account as well.

by Anderkoo on Aug 6, 2009 11:35 am

I want to agree but this kind of protected lane seems like such a patently bad idea to me. I definitely don't want DDOT wasting money to confirm that.

I would think you'd get claustrophobic riding between a sidewalk and a row of parked cars with no easy way to exit, pass other cyclists, or get out of hte way of a car door swinging open or a (justifiably) confused or clueless person trying to slide their car into this parking spot offset from the sidewalk. What a nightmare! Honestly, how hard is it for cyclists to share the road, especially when there are painted bike lines?

Let's just paint some bike lanes on 15th st. and be done with it. 15th is great for cyclists and drivers alike (nicely timed lights!) Let's not mess with it.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 6, 2009 11:41 am

I've ridden lanes just like that. You don't get claustrophobic. This has been done elsewhere and it is not a nightmare. A line of paint does not provide as much protection as a line of parked cars. 15th is not great for cyclists because it is one way, adding unnecessary distance to contraflow traffic.

by David C on Aug 6, 2009 12:05 pm

I'm skeptical, but if others have used them and think it's a good system, I'd try it out. So there's a granite curb between the sidewalk and the roadway? I saw something like this in London, but the protected bike lane was the inner lane leading to an intersection, not the outer lane between parked cars and the sidewalk. I'd love to see a video of this in action.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 6, 2009 12:39 pm

One aim of the 15th St changes is to slow traffic. I think the city should put diagonal parking on both sides of the street. This should leave two lanes for traffic and approximately twice as many parking spaces per block. This was done on 11th St NW between Rhode Island and Vermont/S Sts. There is still room for a bike lane, not protected, but going WITH the flow of traffic.

by Nick the Greek on Aug 6, 2009 12:55 pm

I had the occasion to use a cycle track on a recent trip to Montréal and can recommend it as much friendlier than riding on the street, even streets with a marked bike lane. The track, part of Québec's Route Verte system, runs with two lanes (bidirectional) next to a major street, separated by a curb. Besides me, it was being used by hardcore bicyclist types as well as normal-looking people in street clothes. Since I was a tourist, I didn't know my way around well, and it was much nicer to be separated from the auto traffic as I tried to figure out where I was going.

by Gavin Baker on Aug 6, 2009 1:35 pm

I've ridden contraflow bike lanes on one-way streets in Montreal. They are really great. They're safer than bike lanes on the right because people in their cars are actually facing you when they open their doors -- you both see can see each other through the windshield, which is where a driver normally looks before she gets out of her car.

by James M on Aug 6, 2009 1:40 pm

Ward 1 Guy. Ask and ye shall receive.

by David C on Aug 6, 2009 1:45 pm

@David C: awesomely sweet! Thanks! I recommend that others follow the link. Even without sound (at work) it looks pretty good. I'm won over.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 6, 2009 2:02 pm

Thanks for the video David C.

In the footage they show streets that don't appear to have many if any curb cuts. Please humor me on this real world case... Say this contraflow separated bike lane is installed on 15th Street NW. Now let's focus on a block that has curb cuts for an alley, parking garage entrance or private drive mid block. The contraflow bike lane will need to accommodate the curb cut by allowing a gap just as on street parked cars do. Continuing the example let's say a car pulls out of the alley to the point where the front of their car is flush with the innermost edge of the parked cars. The driver puts themselves in this position as it's the only spot that affords themselves the visibility to identify a gap in the flow of 15th Street traffic. While in this position, as the driver waits for an opportunity to pull fully into the roadway, the tail end of the car will be obstructing the new bike lane.

When the scenario above periodically occurs will the cycling community still be unhappy? Because to me this is just "traffic". We all have to deal with traffic. The scenario I outlayed above already happens to pedestrians - just replace "bicycle lane" with "sidewalk". As a pedestrian as long as the car doesn't pull into this position while I'm in the very immediate vicinity I pause and adjust my route and walk around without any emotional response. Will bicyclists do the same? Or will they get upset because they feel a car has infringed on "their" space? If they did, I would consider that unreasonable. At some point we all have to accept momentary infringements...

by Paul on Aug 6, 2009 2:36 pm

This is a Great(er) idea, one long overdue in DC. I've seen it in NYC, and it works--and I'm sure there are studies that prove it works. But how do we contact someone at DDOT, besides using the DC Govt. website, to put pressure on them to do it sooner rather than later?

by Tony on Aug 6, 2009 4:15 pm

Is WABA on this, because I'd be interested in helping make this happen.

I do think some thought needs to go into how to deal with the driveways and such, because cars may not think to look for cyclists who are moving much faster than the average pedestrian.

Other than the driveway situation, this is how a lot of the big streets in Amsterdam are set up, and if it's good enough for Amsterdam, then it's good enough for me.

by Anderkoo on Aug 6, 2009 4:43 pm

@Paul. There aren't that many curb cuts between Mass and New Hampshire and many of them are for private driveways that could be removed. But even if not, my belief is that cyclists will not be upset when drivers stop while crossing the bike lane as long as they're driving safely. But any intersecting alleys, major driveways and streets must have signs indicating to motorists that they should expect two-way bicycle traffic.

by David C on Aug 6, 2009 5:26 pm

Protected bike lanes are more than just inverting the parking and the lane. A proper cycletrack has a space of 3 to 4 feet between the parking and the lanes. The lane is also a few inches below the grade of the sidewalk, but above the street so its apparent there is something going on there.

The other critical piece is separate signaling. In Amsterdam the bike lane and the street have separate green lights, meaning the bike is protected from cars turning right or left across the lane.

There's no need to study this, it IS safer, just ask the people who've ridden over there. Nobody wears a helmet, why would you!

by Boots on Aug 6, 2009 7:04 pm

David C - Great video! I noticed that most of the separated lanes shown had the two lanes of bike traffic together, rather than on opposite sides of the street as in the 15th Street plan. Putting them together makes more sense, because you'd only have to set aside space for one physical separator, rather than two, the larger area would be more visible, and only one lane of parked cars would have to worry about the bikes. I wonder why DDOT has chosen to separate the bike lanes?

by Erica on Aug 7, 2009 8:59 am

Please please can we "try" something like this on 6th st nw between Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Here you have 2 very narrow travel lanes in each direction along with a row of parked cars. The problem is the 2 lanes encourage dangerous "rally car" type behavior with people regularly exceeding the limit just to get 1 car ahead. Exiting your parked car is very hairy and forget about trying to ride a bike on 6th.

Solutions could include ; 1 lane in each direction with bike lanes, dedicated left turn lanes, or angled parking like on 11th, timed lights to encourage flow at the speed limit-25mph! (with good signage). Any of these can be cheaply implemented and will greatly improve the lives of people living in the neighborhood, and won't significantly slow down the trip time of the commuters traveling through. How can we push for this? Anyone in Shaw feel the same way?

by Chris R on Aug 9, 2009 3:47 pm