Bike slower at night. Visibility is a concern of all modes at night.

by Jason on Jun 20, 2010 1:41 pm  

Has DDOT put some money on the side for the first victims of an accident due to the design?

by Fritz on Jun 20, 2010 3:08 pm  

Yeah, this is terrible. Either the bikelanes should be moved to the side (so that a physical barrier can be erected) or removed altogether. Ruining the aesthetics of America's Main Street just to 'make a statement' isn't the way to go ... Especially since the statement being made with the pylons is 'We can't really accommodate bicycle traffic without making places look real bad'. (15th Street is another example of these poor 'statements' that are being made.) And it makes no sense, especially in this case, were a real physically separated cycle track could be built on one of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Btw, how much you want to bet the Feds don't allow the pylons to stay up there all that long ... And if they do, they'll disappear at the next Inauguration repaving, never to return.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 3:26 pm  

Lance, we'd better get rid of those traffic signals that are ruining the aesthetics of America's Main Street, too.

by Alex B. on Jun 20, 2010 4:38 pm  

@Alex B., Actually google it and you'll see that the traffic signals there have been modified from the standard so that they don't ruin the aesthetics of the avenue.

There's also the matter of 'cost vs. benefit'. There's absolutely no reason to be running cycling lanes down the middle of this street other than some ill-conceived attempt at 'making a statement'. Much more useful, safe, and practical lanes or cycle trackes could either be put in on the sides of this same avenue, or put on other streets.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 7:15 pm  

Augh. You're right. Those traffic signals have been modified so heavily that the road's somewhat unsafe to drive on, as some drivers from out of town don't see them.

I see *buses* run them all the time. It's terrifying.

by andrew on Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm  

(PS. Lance would still oppose the cycle tracks if they were on the side, just like the bullshit being slung about with the streetcar.)

by andrew on Jun 20, 2010 7:25 pm  

@Andrew, Are you a cyclist ... or a motorist ... both ... or neither? If so, do you really think it makes sense to have cyclists out in the middle of a six lane highway? From my perspective, it makes no sense either as a cyclist or as a motorist. And now that I've heard the cyclists will be sharing the median islands with pedestrians, it makes no sense for pedestrians anyways. Why would anyone want to run it there if not for the very reason that was given us when this idea was first announced ... i.e., to make a statement. Policy and planning done only on the basis of 'making a statement' is not sound policy or planning. But what do you expect from an organization that pulled a $1.5 Billion streetcar 'system' out of its hat without having first done even the minimal of planning for such a system.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 8:27 pm  

Different Andrew here.

I think we might be able to agree that having a "six lane highway" as our mainstreet makes no sense, particularly since, in most of it, the capacity far outweighs the demand.

Glad you referred to it appropriately.

by Andrew on Jun 20, 2010 9:00 pm  

>do you really think it makes sense to have cyclists out in the middle of a six lane highway?

I don't there should be any "highways" downtown at all.

by BeyondDC on Jun 20, 2010 9:54 pm  

If so, do you really think it makes sense to have cyclists out in the middle of a six lane highway?

Ignoring the already addressed "highway" reference...

There is nothing magical about the right-hand side. Usually cyclists have been relegated to the right-hand side because that is where slower traffic goes. But in downtown, cyclists can actually move faster than auto-traffic.

In fact the right-hand side may be the wrong place to put cyclists, since that is where parked cars and loading and unloading vehicles go. Putting cyclists in the center gets them away from all of that.

by David C on Jun 20, 2010 10:49 pm  

But in downtown, cyclists can actually move faster than auto-traffic.

Not if they're obeying stop signs, traffic lights, waiting their turn at an intersection, etc. I'll agree they can move as fast as traffic (which may mean 'stuck' in traffic), but they can't move faster if playing by the rules like motorists.

And 'highway' doesn't necessarily mean 'Interstate'-standards. Pennsylvania Avenue is a highway in that it serves to transport traffic at relatively high speeds from one part of the city to another and even from/to Washington to Maryland.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 10:54 pm  

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/highway

Main Entry: high·way
Pronunciation: \ˈhî-ˌwâ\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: a public way; especially : a main direct road

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 10:58 pm  

In fact the right-hand side may be the wrong place to put cyclists, since that is where parked cars and loading and unloading vehicles go.

Again, my suggestion was for a separate cycle track, assuming there is room for it there. If not, there are other streets in the area where an east-west cycle track could be installed. Perhaps even a street could be turned over to such traffic.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2010 11:02 pm  

Even playing by the rules, if traffic is backed up, cyclists can move faster. On a bike you never have to wait for a second green light.

Ruining the aesthetics of America's Main Street What exactly is the aesthetic beauty of a 6 lane highway and how do the pylons ruin it? Please site examples where people have extolled the beauty of this particular highway.

by David C on Jun 20, 2010 11:05 pm  

@David C Even playing by the rules, if traffic is backed up, cyclists can move faster. On a bike you never have to wait for a second green light.

If you're not waiting for the second green light like the rest of the traffic, you're not 'playing by the rules'.

Please site examples where people have extolled the beauty of this particular highway.

Oh let's see ... where shall we start ...
"Washington called this stretch 'most magnificent & most convenient'" .... "On September 30, 1965, portions of the avenue and surrounding area were designated the Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_avenue) ...

And the list goes on and on ...

by Lance on Jun 21, 2010 12:46 am  

Last I checked, passing other vehicles is legal, and thus playing by the rules.

by J on Jun 21, 2010 1:14 am  

Lance, on a bike, you can pass cars on the right (or left) in the same lane or another. That means if you come up to an intersection and the light is red you can pass vehicles all the way to the Advanced Stop Line. When the light turns green you go. That is all within the rules. That's why you never have to wait for a 2nd green light.

by David C on Jun 21, 2010 2:02 am  

@Lance, from the same article - well after the Historic designation (historic, btw, is not the same as aesthetic beauty) and the compliment from George Washington...

"Congress created the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) on October 27, 1972 to rehabilitate the street between the Capitol and the White House, an area seen as blighted."

by David C on Jun 21, 2010 2:06 am  

Lance, et. al.

I ride my bike to work from NW to SE every day and the Penn Ave center lanes have made my commute much easier and safer. That center lane allows me to avoid riding down the right lane of major roads and slowing traffic.

If you want to remove them, I'm perfectly comfortable riding in a regular traffic lane, as I do down 13th Street from north of U St. to Pennsylvania Ave. You'll just end up effectively losing the right lane of Pennsylvania Ave and others to cyclists during rush hours, as without bike lanes, it's our right to occupy a vehicle lane.

And in response to people who talk about the aesthetics of that street -- what are you on?? Have you been to any other western capital city (Paris, Berlin, Moscow)?? The Capitol is a beautiful sight, but the barren expanse of asphalt, lack of landscaping, boring lack of variety of building materials, etc. makes the roadway itself a scar on the face of the city. At least bike lanes add to the road's human vitality and urbanity.

by Adam S on Jun 21, 2010 9:27 am  

Also, Washington was referring to L'Enfant's plans for the Avenue and it was a prediction more than a aesthetic opinion. The full quote is "The Grand avenue connecting both the palace and the federal house will be most magnificent & most convenient..."

by David C on Jun 21, 2010 9:34 am  

The new pylons are terrific. I hope they stay. Big thanks to DDOT.

by aaa on Jun 21, 2010 9:35 am  

Not quite sure what all the fuss is about? I like the bike lanes and have been using them for the past 2 months. Having the lanes in the middle makes me feel much safer than on the sides. This is my area and I am well aware of all of the bus traffic along the sides of the road. The middle is excellent and as far as pedestrians, I have never had a problem with visibility. If you are following the rules of the road you won't be running into them, because you would be obeying the lights. Bikers that are running lights when pedestrians are in the area are the real problem not visibility.

by SW Biker on Jun 21, 2010 10:03 am  

SW Biker: There are cobblestoned pedestrian refuges in the center of PA Ave. If a pedestrian crosses halfway but then can't go the whole way, they might wait there while the lights are green along PA. The original bike lane design had the lanes going around the refuges, but the new design has it going through them, so some pedestrians might be standing there waiting to cross while cyclists have a green light to go along PA Ave. That's the situation WashCycle is worried about.

by David Alpert on Jun 21, 2010 10:07 am  

Obviously LANCE does not live in the area and does not ride down Penn on a regular basis. This is my neighborhood and I approve of the lanes and its placement. I ride from SW all the way to the Rock Creek Tennis Center. The bike lanes on 14th are nice but very dangerous especially at Columbia Heights and U Street corridor. Once I get to Pennsylvania Ave I feel 100% safer. Middle lanes are a nice buffer and they keep you in the view of drivers as opposed to being on the right side in a blind spot.

by SW Biker on Jun 21, 2010 10:17 am  

Lance,

Before you start in on a rant about cyclists remaining in linear traffic and not passing cars, you should take a moment to follow your (illegal) suggestion to it's logical conclusion.

If Bikes are not allowed to pass cars in their lane (and cars allowed to pass bikes), then you are subjecting yourself, as a car driver, to traffic that only, ever, moves as fast as the slowest bicyclist on the road.

See how that works?

The law that allows you to carefully pass a bicyclist as you both move the same way in traffic, allows a cyclist to safely pass you when you are at a stop.

Re: Safety pylons - I actually agree that the pylons are not the most elegant solution that the city has implemented. I think they are an eye sore on 15th street, where they are used to demark the cycling lane from the parking lane. In the 15th street case, I have argued that a physical curb would better segregate parallel parking cars from the lane, and provide a buffer to prevent dooring.

On Penn Ave, the pylons separate moving traffic from the lane, and seem to be a bit more appropriate, if no prettier.

by CJ on Jun 21, 2010 10:19 am  

Dave: I have run into that scenario and can still see pedestrians clearly, I agree it is not the most optimal situation but is still do able. As a regular rider I am always aware of my surroundings and if I am forced to stop then so be it. Cars have to deal with pedestrians also, so I got no room for complaints.

by SW Biker on Jun 21, 2010 10:24 am  

CJ's post two above mine is excellent.

The ironic thing about physical separation on Pennsylvania Avenue is that the better-looking options (like curbs) are off the table because they're "too permanent". By insisting that we can only use methods that are easy to remove, we're stuck with cheap-looking, temporary-by-definition leftovers.

by BeyondDC on Jun 21, 2010 10:49 am  

". By insisting that we can only use methods that are easy to remove, we're stuck with cheap-looking, temporary-by-definition leftovers.

If we were willing to have a President-for-Life then perhaps we wouldn't ned removable bollards, traffic signals, and pylons.

by ah on Jun 21, 2010 11:03 am  

@CJ -- I actually live on 15th Street across the street from the bike lanes, and I don't find them to be much of an eyesore. There's no question that a physical curb would be more elegant, but until there's money and data to support its installation, I would rather have the separated lane with the pylons than a regular paint-only lane or no lane at all.

by Jewdishoowary Square on Jun 21, 2010 11:31 am  

@Jewdishoowary Square - I didn't mean to say that I don't like the lane of 15th. I live at 15th and T, and I use it all the time.

I dislike the pylons both on aesthetic and functional grounds, but I understand why they were used, and hope they can be replaced in the future. And they are certainly superior to a paint only lane.

by CJ on Jun 21, 2010 12:27 pm  

@CJ, Jewdishoowary,

Physical curbs would indeed be nice, but they also present drainage issues that need to be addressed and require a higher level of engineering to implement.

by Alex B. on Jun 21, 2010 12:31 pm  

SW Biker, Have you ridden the lanes after dark? I feel that in the day it is easy to see pedestrians, but at night it is extremely difficult. Have you had a different experience?

by David C on Jun 21, 2010 2:08 pm  

The lanes seem workable, though not the most desired.

On the permanency of the things on this street, I don't see why there can't be made a grassy median. Cannot the President walk down one side of the street during inauguration?

The street obviously does not meet Washington's vision of it. If he saw it today, I'm sure he would say it needs to be changed to be more visually appealing.

by norb on Jun 21, 2010 2:22 pm  

Yeah, not sure why our parades every 4 years couldn't just use one side of the street rather than its entire width. I was in a marching band in high school and I promise you it doesn't take many lanes to have a good parade.

... But whatever. I don't actually object to the pylons. It doesn't bother me if we want to keep the whole street open for one evening every 4 years. I'm just making the point that they're the alternative if we refuse a more permanent solution.

by BeyondDC on Jun 21, 2010 3:34 pm  

The every 4 years part plays into it, but what's more important is how it looks to us the rest of the time. Have you all seen what DDOT did to 15th Street? It's a sad example of a group that can't see beyond their own immediate needs.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2010 10:55 pm  

P.S. I didn't mean DDOT in general, but instead those folks at DDOT (and their constituency) who are looking to promote cycling irrespective of the costs to the rest of us. Penn. Ave. is a good example of that. There are a lot of alternative routes where the biking infrastructure could be put other than this avenue which means so much to so many.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2010 11:00 pm  

Have you all seen what DDOT did to 15th Street? Do you mean how they made it a bike-friendly road that is heavily used by cyclists?

There are a lot of alternative routes where the biking infrastructure could be put other than this avenue which means so much to so many. And with bike lanes it means more to cyclists. What exactly has been lost?

by David C on Jun 21, 2010 11:05 pm  

Just got back from Montreal and guess what: it has several segregated bicycle lanes on major streets separated from car traffic by pylons. For what its worth, I did not come away thinking that the pylons ruined the majesty of Montreal's major avenues. On the contrary, I loved it and I loved how Montreal has developed a bicycling culture --Montreal has a TON of bicyclists, which was certainly not the case 20 years ago. Indeed, I think most people don't even notice the pylons. I hardly did. So public policy decisions re: use of street space and a seious bike sharing system have had an impact without ruining the city or its streets.

As for "the costs to the rest of us" -- I'm not sure what those costs are exactly. Less space for cars? A reduced view of the Capitol for someone sitting or kneeling in the middle of PA Ave? And, how about the costs that cars and their drivers impose on the rest of us: air pollution, noise pollution, congestion, cities scarred by surface parking lots and ugly parking garages, the costs associated with the 40,000 deaths and millions of injuries resulting from car accidents, dependence on oil imported from countries that hate us, a ruined Gulf of Mexico, Canadian forests ruined by tar sand mining...........

by rg on Jun 22, 2010 12:08 pm  

@rg, I don't know where you saw the pylons in Montreal, but I am sure there are plenty of places in Montreal where the pylons would be appropriate there ... just like there are plenty of places where they would be appropriate here in the DC area. The discussion here is whether they are appropriate on the monumental Pennsylvania Avenue that is considered the nation's "Main Street" ... as well as their use in other areas such as 15th Street which is a residential street within a designated historic district. I.e., It's not the use of pylons that I am opposed to. It is the use of them inappropriately (i.e., in inappropriate places.) Penn. Avenue deserves a more dignified solution than 'plastic pylons'. As I've said before I'm all for cycling infrastructure being included in America's Main Street. Just do it in a way that enhances the experience of that street for everyone ... motorists, pedestrians, bus riders ... and yes, cyclists. Separated cycle tracks on one or both sides of that grand avenue with grassy medians separating cyclists from traffic and parked cars would enhance the area. Sticking some hokey plastic pylons in the middle of the street and expecting cyclists to navigate around pedestrians seeking refuge on cobblestoned medians isn't the ideal solution for anyone.

by Lance on Jun 23, 2010 12:51 am  

"Inappropriate" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some would prefer to be able to actually see the US Capitol Dome on a clear day rather than have the viewshed obstructed by smog cuased in part by excessive vehicular traffic.

Pick your poison and go with it.

by Andrew on Jun 23, 2010 5:59 am  

Penn. Avenue deserves a more dignified solution than 'plastic pylons'.

The problem here is the "more dignified solution" was shot down by CFA...

by Froggie on Jun 23, 2010 7:18 am