According to a commenter on the WashCycle post, a driver didn't hit the cyclist. The cyclist ran into a car because neither driver nor cyclist could see each other over the parked cars along the bike track.

by anon on Jun 9, 2011 9:09 am  

Wasn't escalator/elevator maintenance contracted out in the past, and it is only recently brought back in WMATA?

And come someone explain why the elevators are so slow?

by charlie on Jun 9, 2011 9:11 am  

The elevators are slow because they're hydraulic, not like the typical cable operated ones you'd find in a building.

by Bob on Jun 9, 2011 9:16 am  

As someone who has almost struck a cyclist in that track turning left, it is very difficult to see anyone approaching you in that lane because of cars parked blocking the view.

The city should remove 3-4 parking spaces and replace them with a left turn lane. Both the driver and cyclist will be able to see each other.

by Bruce on Jun 9, 2011 9:24 am  

As someone who goes to school in Connecticut, the UBS news is bad news. Stamford is one of the few cities in the state with significant for-profit economic activity in the downtown. It is much nicer than Bridgeport, New Haven, or Hartford. A lot of the development is TOD, centered around the Amtrak and Metro-North station.

Just because something is choosing the cities over the "suburbs," though Stamford is really a city in its own right, doesn't necessarily make it good.

by thesixteenwords on Jun 9, 2011 9:32 am  

So, you're a politician and an envelope comes with $2600 of cash and you don't think there's possibly something illegal about it? If Jim Graham can credibly claim that then he is a complete and total idiot. Sure, it's conceivable it's legitimate, but it's much more likely to violate some law or another--people rarely get that much cash from someone not related to them or closely known to them.

by ah on Jun 9, 2011 9:39 am  

"Right now Google Maps only shows WMATA's regular schedules."

Does it really show the regular schedules? Clicking on a bus stop doesn't give me a popup with the WMATA bus schedule (does work with some MTA commuter buses)

by MLD on Jun 9, 2011 9:42 am  

I am relatively sympathetic to Graham on the bribe issue. He refused a bribe, but didnt report his trusted aide. If my trusted friend tried to give me cocaine, I would say no, but I wouldn't go the police. People make stupid mistakes.
Then there is the painting that came from the Ethiopian community. Do you return it and offend your constituents?

By comparison, we have Council members who remain in office despite stealing money meant for poor kids (Thomas), Marion Barry's long troubles with the law, our "fully loaded SUV" chairman of the council, and the Mayor with allegations that he bribed others and appointed unqualified people to key positions.

Thomas, in particular, really irks me. What sort of person sets up a charity to help kids and then uses the money like his personal slush fund?

by SJE on Jun 9, 2011 9:44 am  

I argued against making the 15st street bike lane a two way lane. As a contraflow lane, turning car drivers have a sight line up the lane and can easily see approaching bikes. Bikes traveling in the same direction are not able to easily see each other. The signaling on the street should take care of this problem, but it's hugely confusing for everyone involved.

The car driver may have had a green turn light, in which case, the cyclist illegally entered the intersection. He may have had a green light, and a red turn signal, in which case, the car illegally entered the intersection. Both of those scenarios happen regularly. Car drivers don't see that they shouldn't turn because their turn lane is actually sandwiched between lane of non-turning traffic, and is not the left most lane (the bike lane). Cyclists see the green light and take the intersection as well.

The two way traffic in the bike lane is a mess. I still advocate a contraflow lane for southbound bikes and a sharrow for north bound bikes.

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 9:46 am  

Sorry for the editing "Bikes traveling in the same direction as cars" are not able to easily see each other.

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 9:49 am  

Sorry for the multiple posts. I looked at some more coverage and realized that if this happened at the alley entrance, then the car driver was at fault. The bike has the right of way there. I would still say that this is partially due to a design flaw though, because the north bound bike and car do not have a reasonable line of sight for adequate reaction time at the alleys.

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 9:52 am  

Regarding the elevators, typically elevators traveling 5 floors or fewer use a hydraulic piston for motive power while elevators in taller structure use cables. The hydraulic piston elevators typically move at 200 ft./minute while a cable elevator can move at up to 2000 ft./minute. So, yes, the elevators in Metro stations are going to be moving pretty slowly in comparison to what you are used to in your office tower.

by ksu499 on Jun 9, 2011 9:52 am  

I wasn't aware that a blue line extension had even proceeded into the "pipe dream" stages.

(That said, blue/yellow extensions may be easy, because they can be built alongside an existing railroad or through mostly undeveloped land. Still, the downtown blue line may need to happen before we reach any further out into the suburbs...)

by andrew on Jun 9, 2011 9:53 am  

The Metro extensions to Woodbridge and Ft. Belvior actually aren't as crazy as they sound. The distance from Metro Center to Dulles is about 26 miles; to Woodbridge is about 22, and Ft. Belvior is closer. For comparison, Metro Center to Shady Grove is about 22. So it wouldn't be an unprecedented extension.

Is it more cost-effective than improving VRE? Questionable. And it would necessitate adding capacity in the core, such as a separated Blue Line.

by Gavin on Jun 9, 2011 9:55 am  

@Gavin

Would a blue line extension be more cost-effective than VRE improvements? Unlikely. Would a yellow line extension? If there is massive upzoning and capture of the development potential along the Route 1 corridor, then yes, potentially.

However, there is no way these extensions (which are nothing more than ideas right now) should be included in the map. Certainly, Wyman would be wise to consider the future and look to accommodate all sorts of potential expansions of service into his updated map design - including, as you note, a separated Blue line through downtown (amongst other potential new lines that might come out of WMATA's RTSP process).

The notion that these two ideas should actually appear on the map as it will be printed is ludicrous.

by Alex B. on Jun 9, 2011 10:11 am  

If my trusted friend tried to give me cocaine, I would say no, but I wouldn't go the police. People make stupid mistakes.

While accepting bribes and using cocaine is illegal, only refusing to acknowledge the attempt to bribe can cost you (In this case Graham) your job. Graham kept a man who was passing along a BRIBE as a trusted confidante. Imagine the outrage if Fenty or Gray for that matter not only didn't report it but failed to fire him for the same suspicions that Ted may be comprimised. Hell, people are now being fired for much less. Like, Cherita Whiting.

by HogWash on Jun 9, 2011 10:15 am  

"If you print it, they will come"?
To avoid distance issues, I'd break the Blue line into two segments with the a transfer point at Franconia and an extension to Quantico. Likewise with the Yellow Line with a transfer point at Huntington and an extension to at least Ft Belvoir.
The main difference with the Silver Line is there seems to be political support for this effort, unlike the perpetual opposition the Silver Line has had since its enception (this seems to be the Examiner's raison de etre). Building the Yellow down US-1 in particular could help rennovate this sprawling and overburdened roadway.

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on Jun 9, 2011 10:28 am  

Something concerns me about Wells' proposal. It reminds of the whole idea of "outsourcing" jobs, something the federal gov't is trying to get a handle on itself. I would argue that he's trying to work around the union but then I would also imagine that contractors would also be member of unions as well.

Would that mean all current operators will be fired? If not, where else w/in metro will their skillset take them.

And although I understand his point about the contractors being better able to "compete" for better work, with all the challenges this particular network faces, do we really want such a variety of companies servicing our system?

by HogWash on Jun 9, 2011 10:38 am  

So that's, what, the third council member who's been accused of serious impropriety? And DC wants Statehood? LOL. It needs to be administered again, not given more responsibility.

by asuka on Jun 9, 2011 10:52 am  

If my trusted friend tried to give me cocaine, I would say no, but I wouldn't go the police. People make stupid mistakes.

Cocaine is not a great comparison because there's fair debate both about whether drug use should be illegal and whether its use really harms others or is a private matter.

But bribery is one of the core evils of politics. Graham should have (a) recognized what the money likely represented; (b) resolved the issue with his aide; (c) potentially reported it to the authorities. Graham didn't even bother to pursue the issue with his aide, it appears--he told him just to return it. If your aide is bringing you bribes you need to find out why, because you can't have such a person. As it turns out, the guy was dirty. Maybe there's some innocent explanation, but Gray willfully remained ignorant. That's nearly as bad as committing the crime itself.

by ah on Jun 9, 2011 11:01 am  

The car-bike crash on 15th Street occurred at the alley behind my apartment. Because the alleys are not signalized this should be an open-and-shut case of failure to yield by the car driver when the cyclist had the right of way. It's essentially a "right hook" crash that happened on a left turn.

That said, the visibility issue does highlight a flaw with the current configuration of the bike lane at the alleys. Daylighting would improve visibility, but daylighting alone would only encourage left-turning drivers to cross the bike lane at a shallower angle that would provide an even poorer view of northbound cyclists. If the crossings were daylighted, plastic bollard posts should be placed near where the right front fender of previously parked cars were - in order to ensure that left turning drivers slowly and completely make their turn before they cross the bike lane. This would ensure that drivers have the ability to see and yield to cyclists from a 90-degree angle.

Probably the cheapest and quickest remedy for this section of the 15th Street bike lane is to ban left turns from 15th Street into the alleys altogether. The alleys in this stretch are "T"-shaped and have three access points each - one on 15th Street and one each on the parallel streets (in this case Q and Corcoran). As a resident of this block I'd support making the 15th Street opening of the alley "exit only". It's only a 15-20 second delay to drivers to make them turn left at Corcoran and then turn left into the alley. I already do that when I drive because it's just easier and safer than crossing the bike lane at the alley.

by KG on Jun 9, 2011 11:13 am  

@asuka

Using that same logic, this entire country shouldn't be allowed to govern itself.

by Adam L on Jun 9, 2011 11:18 am  

@ KG,

There are two like that. I'd support that option for those two though.

It wouldn't work much for the streets, since many of them are one way west bound. The only way to enter without a multiblock drive around, is from 15th. In my case, Caroline stops at 15th and is also one way, and that wouldn't work at all.

I like the suggestion over at Washcycle, of raised crosswalks as speed bumps.

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 11:40 am  

The push to add the possible Blue and Yellow line extensions to the new map is rather silly. Posturing on their part. The map is being revised because the Silver Line and the new service patterns are a major change. A Yellow line extension of 2-3 (?) stations down Rt 1 should be relatively easy to add to the map without overhauling the new map if it comes to pass. When they extended the Blue line to Largo, they did not hire Wyman to redo the map.

I think an extension of the Yellow line down Rt. 1 is worth considering and could make sense. An extension of the Blue Line, not so much. Upgrading the RF&P line to 4 tracks (2 passenger, 2 freight running as separated operations) to allow VRE to go to 7 days a week with greater frequency during the day and as part of the Southeast HSR corridor would be more cost effective and provide greater overall utility.

by AlanF on Jun 9, 2011 11:42 am  

@KG
"Because the alleys are not signalized this should be an open-and-shut case of failure to yield by the car driver when the cyclist had the right of way. It's essentially a "right hook" crash that happened on a left turn. "

Except that the car was already in the intersection and nearly through it. The cyclist hit the rear qrt panel of the vehicle, therefore it is a open-and-shut case of failure to yield by the cyclist when the driver had the right of way, and was clearly there and nearly through the intersection before the cyclist hit their vehicle.

This is the second or third car/bike accident on those bike lanes sicne they made them bidirectional. I'll save everyone the well deserved "I told you so".

by freely on Jun 9, 2011 11:47 am  

I'll save everyone the well deserved "I told you so".

When you type it, it is the same as if were speaking, so nothing was saved.

This is akin to a person speaking to another and saying: "No offense, but I ....." and then saying something totally offensive.

by greent on Jun 9, 2011 11:59 am  

I thought Seattle already provide real-time transit, including bus, arrivals on Google maps. Or is it only scheduled times?

by m on Jun 9, 2011 12:57 pm  

Contracting out only makes sense if there is frankly day-to-day monitoring of performance. Periodic monitoring won't work.

by Rich on Jun 9, 2011 1:05 pm  

Extending the Blue line doesn't make sense because there is no room for additional cars in the Rosslyn tunnel and the existing blue line trains going through Rosslyn are at capacity (or more accurately, will be at capacity starting next summer when some blue trains are diverted to go over the Yellow line bridge).

What makes more sense is building a line that goes from Tysons, through Baileys Crossroads (connecting to the Columbia Pike streetcar), on to King Street station. This could be paid for by tax revenue from new condos and office buildings at those three job centers and by congestion pricing on Rt. 7.

by Falls Church on Jun 9, 2011 1:37 pm  

Add extensions to Metro map?

Can we have a session where commenters can suggest their dream extensions of the metro system? Perhaps someone can post a short howto on how to draw something like that in Google maps.

by Jasper on Jun 9, 2011 1:37 pm  

I share charlie's memory that WMATA had been contracting out repair work until a few years ago, when they started moving it in-house to ensure greater oversight while they systematically renovated escalators that had reached a certain age. There was a Post article about this.

by DCster on Jun 9, 2011 1:44 pm  

I agree with thesixteenwords, it's a bit oversimple to dismiss Stamford as "the suburbs". It's a dense small city on par with, if not larger than, Bethesda. It's got a fantastic multimodal transportation center that has an Acela stop, express trains to NYC, and local service up and down the coast. Yes, driving is probably the primary mode, but it's hardly an isolated office park. It's not New York, and UBS obviously decided that the large city had more to offer than a small one, but that's different than city vs suburb.

by TM on Jun 9, 2011 2:14 pm  

@freely therefore it is a open-and-shut case of failure to yield by the cyclist when the driver had the right of way,

Incorrect. The onus was on the driver to be able to make the turn without interfering with the cyclist. Even if the cyclist failed to slow down, a well-executed turn does not require the cyclist to do so. If you turn in front of someone's ROW and the only way they can avoid crashing into you is to slow down - then you're doing it wrong. That they hit the back panel is only proof that the driver took the turn fast.

This is the second or third car/bike accident on those bike lanes sicne they made them bidirectional. I'll save everyone the well deserved "I told you so".

I think it's the second. But this data alone is incomplete without knowing how many crashes there were over a similar period of time on 15th, prior to the redesign. And it should really consider all crashes on 15th prior to and after the change (car/car, car/ped, etc...) Furthermore, the sample size is really too small to say "I told you so." I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you haven't come close to proving you're right.

by David C on Jun 9, 2011 3:50 pm  

@David,

"Sigh",

No. Completely wrong, but I don't expect you to recant. We all know you feel there is absolutely no scenario in life where a cyclist is ever responsible for anything. We will see who the police assigns blame. Oh, thats right. There is apparently a vast conspiracy in place by all law enforcement to assign blame to the cyclist regardless of circumstance!

Assuming you are correct for a second, why didn't the cyclist avoid the car? No one wants to hit or get hit regardless of legal "right of way", so why didn't the cyclist slow down or stop?

Could it be because the cyclist didn't see the car? "GASP" no!

Why people think its reasonable expect drivers to have magic vision and see simultaneously behind them, two lanes over through a line of parked cars, yet don't expect cyclists to see cars in front of them and to the right?

Feel free to close your eyes, plug your ears and spend your afternoon going "lalalalala" pretending there isn't a problem. It doesn't change that there is.

The new bi-directional track has been open for 3 months, and there have been two of these "left hook" near death accidents.

The one-direction track was open for a solid year prior, and zero "left hook" accidents.

How much more factual "data" do you need?

by freely on Jun 9, 2011 4:16 pm  

@ David C

I agree with you points except that the fact that the car was hit in the rear quarter panel is not clear evidence that the car was moving fast. It is as likely that the bicycle approached from far away, and/or that the bicyclist swerved. The fact that the impact left a sizable dent in the car suggests that the cyclist was moving at moderate to high speed.

If the cyclist and the car driver approached the intersection at the same time, then the cyclist would have been hit. The evidence suggests that the cyclist was some distance behind the car when the car entered the intersection. This is exactly the scenario that makes me nervous when I use this lane. A car approaching the intersection at a great speed than me, but passing me before the daylight area, will not know I'm there as they start to tern. If I can't brake fast enough, I would hit the side of their car.

That's why I think it's badly designed. If traffic moved more slowly in the car lanes, or if sight lines were better, it would be less dangerous, but that's not the case.

I'm going to continue to use the right most lane of the car lanes for north bound travel.

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 4:26 pm  

Blue and Yellow line extension:

Not to steal from Richard Layman, but we need some regional planning on the subject of Metro expansion. We need to make a wish list of possible expansions and prioritize them. Having each jurisdiction do what it thinks is in its best interest is going to overhwelm the core of the system, because DC can't afford to decouple the blue and orange lines by itself.

That project should be the top priority. It should come before the Silver line or the Purple line or any expansion on the ends. The only thing that might be a higher priority, IMO, is the ped tunnels between the Farraguts and between Metro Center and Gallery Place. But no one is even talking about it.

by David C on Jun 9, 2011 4:29 pm  

@ freely

At a two way stop, the car that must yield right of way is still at fault if they enter the intersection and get hit on the rear quarter panel, correct?

How is this different?

by CJ on Jun 9, 2011 4:30 pm  

@CJ, you're right, there are other possible explanations. I really meant that hitting the back of the car is not proof that the driver turned with enough time to make the turn safely. I was trying to give an example, so I wasn't clear above.

by David C on Jun 9, 2011 4:38 pm  

@freely,

Sigh indeed.

We all know you feel there is absolutely no scenario in life where a cyclist is ever responsible for anything.

Way to start out with a reasonable statement. Obviously I acknowledge that cyclist err at times. This isn't one of them.

Assuming you are correct for a second, why didn't the cyclist avoid the car? No one wants to hit or get hit regardless of legal "right of way", so why didn't the cyclist slow down or stop?

She had the right of way and so did not expect a car to turn suddenly in front of her. When it did, the distance between her and the car was too short for her to stop without hitting it and there was no where for her to turn.

Could it be because the cyclist didn't see the car?

Since the car came from behind her, she probably didn't see it until moments before the crash. She may well have seen it though, but did not expect it to turn right in front of her, since she had the right of way.

Why people think its reasonable expect drivers to have magic vision and see simultaneously behind them, two lanes over through a line of parked cars, yet don't expect cyclists to see cars in front of them and to the right?

This question doesn't really make sense. But what people expect is for all operators to not turn across a lane of traffic without ensuring that it is safe to do so. If an obstruction blocks your view, you should either not turn or proceed very slowly and cautiously. This driver did not do that.

The new bi-directional track has been open for 3 months, and there have been two of these "left hook" near death accidents.

Um, it opened in it's current form in late December. That's 5 months plus. And I'm not sure the other one had zero left hooks - I have some crash data at home and I'll look. Nor is that the only measure of note. If the old design had 0 left hooks but 2000 cyclists hit and killed from behind (which clearly it did not) and the new design had 2 near death left hooks and 0 cyclists hit and killed from behind then the two left hooks would be largely irrelevant. We have to look at ALL crashes, ALL types, in ALL places along the redesigned 15th to see which design is safest.

How much more factual "data" do you need?

I apologize, but I'm not going to take your rantings as factual data. So I need something more than "What freely says". Since you don't really know much about anything.

by David C on Jun 9, 2011 4:54 pm  

To quote oboe at Washcycle

"If a car runs over a scooter-riding kid on the sidewalk, who's at fault then? This is absolutely an example of car driver error: the appropriate left-turn here would be to verify there's no traffic moving parallel. The fact that there's a line of parked cars between the two travel lanes means that the left-turning car has an obligation to stop (or slow to a crawl) before entering the cycletrack, then slowly make the turn once they've determined there's no conflict. We have narrow alleys in my neighborhood, and there are no sightlines to the sidewalk when you emerge from one. So the responsible drivers pull up to the sidewalk, then slowly pull across the sidewalk, and enter the street. The responsible driver doesn't use the fact that a wall is obstructing their view to excuse running over some pedestrian."

by David C on Jun 9, 2011 4:57 pm  

re: my comment about Graham is not to dispute the evil of corruption, or even that he was wrong. Only that there are far bigger fish to fry.

by SJE on Jun 9, 2011 6:02 pm  

@Falls Church, moving Blue Line trains to the bridge on the Yellow Line will lighten the traffic load at Rosslyn and in the tunnel. Which is why there are doing it before the Silver Line starts and really clogs up Rosslyn station and the traffic through the core.

I think a new line from Tysons roughly following Rt. 7 to Bailey's crossroads and then to the Blue/yellow line somewhere should looked at, but there appears to be no plans or interest in it.

@Jasper, there have been fantasy Metro maps discussions on this blog before. Which are entertaining to look at. Maybe have a new round of them for a slow news day this summer? Since a fantasy or blue sky Metro map without any constraints could have all sorts of impractical lines on it, my suggestion (speaking to all) would be to have a wish list Metro map (assuming the Silver and Purple Lines are built) with the following limits: no more than 23 miles of new tracks (distance of the silver Line extension), no more than ~15 additional stations, and no more than 3 different extensions or re-routes total (can't extend all 5 lines at each end). That way, people would have to make choices on what new routes to select or proposed. Might make for an interesting contest and discussion to see what people give priority to.

by AlanF on Jun 9, 2011 6:47 pm  

@Falls Church, moving Blue Line trains to the bridge on the Yellow Line will lighten the traffic load at Rosslyn and in the tunnel. Which is why there are doing it before the Silver Line starts and really clogs up Rosslyn station and the traffic through the core.

I think a new line from Tysons roughly following Rt. 7 to Bailey's crossroads and then to the Blue/yellow line somewhere should be looked at, but there appears to be no plans or interest in it at the offical levels.

@Jasper, there have been fantasy Metro maps discussions on this blog before. Which are entertaining to look at. Maybe have a new round of them for a slow news day this summer? Since a fantasy or blue sky Metro map without any constraints could have all sorts of impractical never going to happen lines on it, my suggestion (speaking to all) would be to have a wish list Metro expansion map contest (which assumes the Silver and Purple Lines are built) with the following limits: no more than 23 miles of new tracks (distance of the Silver Line extension), no more than ~15 additional stations, and no more than 3 different extensions or re-routes total (can't extend all 5 lines at each end). That way, people would have to make choices on what new routes to select or proposed. Might make for an interesting contest and discussion to see what people give priority to.

by AlanF on Jun 9, 2011 6:56 pm