I hope you sent this to Fail Blog.

by David C on Nov 7, 2009 10:44 am  

Maybe it's not an error. Maybe it's a reasonable accommodation under ADA for dyslexic drivers and bikers, who, as we all know, have more fnu.

by Mike on Nov 7, 2009 11:58 am  

not the only misspelling on this project - nice job fellas. "trun"
http://bit.ly/CDzIj

by Park View on Nov 7, 2009 12:20 pm  

And this project cost how much?!?

by Lance on Nov 7, 2009 2:43 pm  

The traffic signals also do not display in a southward direction on 15th, meaning cyclists will have even less motivation to obey them than usual.

by Paul on Nov 7, 2009 4:36 pm  

There's been research to show that text remains legible even if you switch 2-3 pairs of letters in the core of the issue but keep the letters at the front and the back as they were. Considering how rote driver-sign interactions are, this is not so much a problem as hilarious.

I drove on 15th today and found the new configuration pretty convenient. Turning off of Q street, where it's easy to right-hook someone, being able to see bikers coming in the opposite direction actually made it easier to react to them.

by Neil Flanagan on Nov 7, 2009 5:21 pm  

Paul, the traffic signal for southbound cyclists is the ped light.

by David C on Nov 7, 2009 6:42 pm  

@David C. Which means it's not a signal intended for vehicles, which a bicycle is. Someone at DDOT didn't think that through from a law enforcement perspective. My concern is cross traffic not looking for bikes heading south, in the unexpected direction. I think this design is inherently unsafe. I'll be using the southbound bike lanes on 14th and eschewing this experiment.

by Paul on Nov 7, 2009 7:04 pm  

Maybe they can add a sign advising cyclists to look both ways before crossing ... and wear 'bright colored clothing'?

by Lance on Nov 7, 2009 9:57 pm  

New sign for bike lane:

"WHERE BRITE CLOTHS"

;)

by Lance on Nov 7, 2009 10:01 pm  

Paul, how would a light intended for vehicles differ from the ped light? With all of the warnings DDOT put up to avoid the left hook - and considering that left turning cars should already be looking out for peds - I don't think this design is inherently unsafe.

by David C on Nov 7, 2009 11:05 pm  

@Neil

Indeed, the first and last letters are the most important.

http://www.martinoflynn.com/blog/2008/04/17/is-your-brain-to-blame-for-spelling-errors/

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

by Alex B. on Nov 8, 2009 12:41 am  

Typical DDOT sign shop incompetence. There are misspelled signs all over the city. The sign shop down on Capitol Hill regularly makes signs that are illegible, with incorrectly sized and formatted text, and improperly mounted, with larger signs falling off after a few weeks or months.

by plinth on Nov 8, 2009 1:42 am  

I'm with Paul @ 7:04. The biggest puzzlement in all this is that there's a perfectly fine and popular bike lane one block over.

by crin on Nov 8, 2009 8:34 am  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-08-adult-literacy_N.htm

by Jasper on Nov 8, 2009 10:40 am  

@crin, part of the answer is that the road had extra capacity and so they were looking for something to do with the space. But 14th is a block east of 15th. This will save some cyclists two blocks from there ride. When studies show that a lot of people won't bike more than 2 miles to run an errand, two blocks makes a big difference. Also, the 14th street bike lanes are often blocked with stopped cars and construction equipment, that shouldn't be an issue on 15th.

by David C on Nov 8, 2009 12:01 pm  

@Crin and Paul. I'm with you guys. Why don't we just close 15th street to all traffic? There are perfectly good roads for cars one block east and west.

by CJ on Nov 9, 2009 12:04 am  

I think we should get rid of most of these wide one-way through streets (15th and 17th), might seem mainly to serve the needs of commuters, and make neighborhood circulation needlessly complicated. It makes more sense that the lettered cross streets in the area (Q, R and T) are one-way, due to their width, and the need to accommodate parking, one car lane and one bike lane.

As for preferring 14th over 15th, I'd rather ride my bike on a two-way street, where drivers are expecting to interact with traffic in both directions. Is this really a difficult concept?

by Paul on Nov 9, 2009 8:18 am  

Paul, it's not a difficult concept, but 15th is now a two-way street. It's just that only bikes can go south.

by David C on Nov 9, 2009 9:15 am  

Are they going to add a curb to this to make it a protected facility?

by Neil Perry on Nov 9, 2009 9:56 am  

Also, at least as far as peds are concerned, it's the wrong word entirely. DC law says that drivers are to "STOP" for peds in a crosswalk, not "yield" (or "yeild").

by Eileen on Nov 9, 2009 11:00 am  

I e-mailed DDOT as well, and the problem was fixed within a day or so -- at least it was for the segment I reported between Massachusetts and Rhode Island Avenues. Not sure if it's been fixed the rest of the way up to U Street.

And yes, cars continue to park/stand in the bike lane between Mass and RI, but they seem to have figured it out for the segments further up the street. Perhaps the cabs that wait at the taxi stand at RI Ave are setting a bad example for the other parkers on that block.

by Jewdishoowary Square on Nov 9, 2009 12:13 pm  

I tried the contraflow bike lane and I don't like it. Lots of debris from trees. 14th st. lanes are much cleaner and, while there are often parked vehicles (Fedex!), i've had little trouble negotiating around them. OF course, I live closer to the 14th, so easy for me to say.

Is the bike lane debris problem likely to persist and be a problem for other protected lanes? I think it's good that we tested this concept out in DC, but doesn't assure that it will be a winner.

by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 9, 2009 2:09 pm  

Finally saw 15th street this weekend, as a driver. What an ugly scene! They've completely junked it up. I couldn't imagine what everyone was talking about, well at least I superimposed what I HOPED happened - I hoped that they had taken one FAR lane and ran it contra, and then took the other far lane and made it a bike only lane going with traffic, but no. I cannot begin to understand it, and it's awful on the eyes. Awful, junked up UGLY. I feel bad for the people who live there. It's confusing and ugly.

Boo.

by Jazzy on Nov 9, 2009 8:17 pm  

Jazzy I'm definitely with you on this one. When you look at it you have to ask, did the DDOT planner grow up in some rural outpost of Appalachia where it's okay to park old cars on your front yard?

Additionally, Councilmember Evans was at the ANC meeting tonight and he said something about never having more complaints about any one issue. He said something about all he had to do was call DDOT and have it removed. At least a couple ANC members mentioned to him that this was not one of the options presented to the public and another mentioned that when he'd learned of this option he'd told DDOT he felt it was a very dangerous layout.

Additionally, the ANC said that DDOT had told them that they didn't feel there was a consensus from the community meetings on the desired layout ... so they'd devised their own layout. What gumption!

I think the good thing to come out of this is that (hopefully) the Council won't allow DDOT to use this neighborhood as a guinea pig anymore. Let's let these 'novel' ideas be tried out in other places, and not in Dupont or Logan ... or anywhere in the nation's capital!

by Lance on Nov 11, 2009 10:59 pm  

OK Lance, where should innovation happen? Look, just because a bunch of ignorant mouthbreathers who live near 15th street think it's dangerous, that doesn't make it dangerous. Who do you think knows more about safe raod design, the profesionals at DDOT or the average person who lives near 15th street?
What gumption indeed. The idea that DDOT, the agency charged with the duty of designing our transportation system would go out and design our transportation system is crazy. Who do they think they are? Obviously the group of lawyers and public relations professionals who form the ANC know more about this than a bunch of civil engineers and urban planning professionals.

by David C on Nov 11, 2009 11:16 pm  

@David C: The proof is in the pudding. This thing looks terrrible ... junky as Jazzy put it. And the signs don't make sense (e.g., cars are supposed to 'stop' and not 'yield' to peds in the crosswalk) as another poster said. And it doesn't take a degree in anything to tell you that expecting bicyclists to follow pedestrian signals isn't a reasonable expectation, and creating a commuter lane for bicyclists under the guise of 'calming a neighborhood street' is a lie.

by Lance on Nov 11, 2009 11:49 pm  

If the proof were in the pudding, you'd be able to point to some accidents. But right now all you have is conjecture and prophecy, which isn't really pudding.
The difference between yield and stop is you yield (by stopping) only when someone else is present, but with a stop sign - you always stop. So yielding to a ped is stopping.
Bicyclists will pay just as much attention to pedestrian signals as they do to traffic signals.
Why does it matter the guise for creating a commuter lane for bicyclists, when the lane is a good thing?

by David C on Nov 12, 2009 12:12 am  

Down with new ideas! I demand that all new ideas be proven before use, but not tested on any living persons! And a demonstrably faulty concept should be preferred to a new one!

by Neil Flanagan on Nov 12, 2009 8:51 am  

@David C: The proof of the pudding is that this is not a value added for the neighbors living there ... which is what this project was presented as at the community meetings. (And if it were, you wouldn't have the Councilmember saying that on the feedback he'd received he was ready to have it taken out immediately). Now, if those community meetings weren't really intended to get community involvement in making this street better for the neighbors and the neighborhood, then we have a much more serious issue.

As for it 'being a good thing', I think you fail to take into account that there are different perspectives. For the people living near this cycle track it is not a good thing as evidenced by what the Councilmember had to say and as evidenced by a story that came out in the Dupont Current yesterday. Downtown and this neighborhood in particular has oftentimes sacrificed itself for the sake of commuters. Personnally, I don't think we need to sacrifice even more than we already have.

by Lance on Nov 12, 2009 10:43 am  

What did the Dupont Current story say (it's not online yet)? What are neighbors complaining about? So far I've got from you that it's ugly (can't argue with taste), that it's unsafe (despite there being no reported decrease in safety) and that some of the ANC members don't like the design or don't feel that they were presented it - even though it was the well-known plan for more than a year, discussed on this blogs and others. So what are people complaining about?

by David C on Nov 12, 2009 11:01 am  

I have the Current story here and it's not that big a deal. Some neighbors were saying they were confused before the reflective posts went in. Some others are saying they never heard about this even though DDOT put notices on all the doors. It all seems like stuff that will work itself out.

by David Alpert on Nov 12, 2009 11:06 am  

@David C: Here are some parts of it:
"Despite the two years of work that went into the $200,000 reconfiguration, the change caused "pandemonium" during its first few days ... "
"Neighbors were having impromptu meetings on the corner, say 'What is going on here?"
"They never bothered to tell the people living in the neighborhood that the bike lane is not going to be a normal bike lane".

I think something to consider is that most folks are too busy with life to get involved in something until it directly affects them. (And this applies to all types of issues.) As a result, the only people really invested in giving feedback in the development of the project are those who see themselves as benefiting from the change. In this case, it was possibly the people that this blog helped notify of the issue ... And who for the most part are the people reading this blog who would read the posts on the bikelane ... You see what I mean?

Now the Council (and others in the City) are soooo busy fighting fires in this city, that they're not going to get involved until a problem develops ... Until they start hearing from lots of constituents.

And now that the others (i.e., the non-bike-commuters looking to use the street) are getting affected they will get the Councilmember (and others involved.) And who do you think the Councilmember has an interest in sideing with? ... The people in his ward? ... or the commuters cutting through?

by Lance on Nov 12, 2009 11:13 am  

David, missed you at the ANC meeting last night. Actually, after hearing Evans talk about the issue, I wouldn't count on this bike commuter lane being around for long. You ought to contact his office and see whether that was just 'show' for the meeting or real.

by Lance on Nov 12, 2009 11:17 am  

So the problems are not with the bike lane, but with the way in which neighbors were informed about it? That's not exactly a reason to call for no more such facilites, but for better outreach. As David said, these problems will work themselves out.

And my experience is that the main people really invested in giving feedback in the development of a project are those who are fearful of the change.

by David C on Nov 12, 2009 11:19 am  

@David C: Also, the article points out that this track is very very experimental ... only existing in a few other cities.

by Lance on Nov 12, 2009 11:36 am  

Wow! Very VERY experimental. That's pretty experimental. Much more so than just very experimental. I had no idea it was that experimental. That's like double-secret experimental.

Insert Neil Flanagan's above comment here.

by David C on Nov 12, 2009 1:12 pm