New Hampshire Avenue contraflow design

Bicycling

New Hampshire Avenue contraflow design

by David Alpert • November 13, 2008 9:06 am

15th Street isn't the only contraflow bike lane planned for DC. DDOT is working on designs for a contraflow lane on New Hampshire Avenue between T and U (where New Hampshire is one-way southbound) and U and V (where it is one-way northbound). This is a very popular, and perhaps the safest, route across U Street for cyclists, as New Hampshire is wide but low traffic.

Click to enlarge (PDF).

When cyclists in the contraflow lane approach the intersection, they will see a special signal to wait until traffic is stopped on 16th. Then, they can proceed across 16th into the bike box area. When the light turns green for traffic on 16th, they can cross the intersection and re-enter New Hampshire, with the "sharrow" telling cyclists and motorists to share the lanes. We'll also get bike boxes on U.

The mega-bulb-outs from the previous plan (right) are still there, and the dangerous slip lanes still gone. The southwest plaza is shrinking a bit, to fit in the extra contraflow lane. The original plan looks really cool, with the two symmetrical circular plazas, but may be better on paper than in real life. Each circle had a gap on the "underside", on New Hampshire, which looked elegant but didn't actually make sense, forcing pedestrians to walk a little bit out of the way in the name of cleaner lines.

As you can see, the northeast plaza in the new design is a bit of a franken-curb, with about four different angles. That's probably better for actual traffic, even if it looks less elegant on a plan. I do wonder if the edge closest to 16th and U could be squared up a bit.

12 comments

Tags: bike boxes, contraflow lanes, DC, U Street

More details on New Hampshire Ave contraflow bike lanes (Aug 8, 2008)
Contraflow lanes open on New Hampshire Ave (Aug 11, 2010)
16th & U getting contraflow lanes, bike boxes (Jun 16, 2010)
DDOT planning contraflow bike lanes on New Hampshire (Aug 7, 2008)
Where's the 15th Street contraflow lane? (Aug 6, 2009)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Wow! This plan is awesome!

by John Curran on Nov 13, 2008 10:15 am • link • report

It's great, but it'll be forever until DDOT actually impliments it. I like DDOT because once they get around to it, they do good work, but it takes FOREVER for them to complete a project. On average about 2 years longer than originally planned... Pretty unacceptable.

by SG on Nov 13, 2008 11:04 am • link • report

I really like the plan. I wonder, however, if DC drivers (or bikers, for that matter) will know how to use bike boxes.

My worry is that drivers will block them and that cyclists will not engender respect for the boxes from drivers because they'll just use them as staging points for red-light-running.

Still, as a cyclist, I'm enthusiastic about the project.

by Matt' on Nov 13, 2008 12:07 pm • link • report

On the surface, what's planned for this intersection doesn't seem workable. We're going to end up with a situation that both makes the intersection harder for drivers navigate and creates a safety hazard for cyclists. A real lose-lose proposition. Just because a few cyclists might want to use that intersection to "cut through" in ways that even motorists aren't allow to do, this isn't a good enough reason to endanger everyone and inconvenience the motorists. This sounds a bit like that proposal to put a counter-traffic flow bike lane on 15th Street. Yeah, that might help out a few cyclists looking for a short cut, but the price to be paid is decreased safety for everyone and the creation of a situation that puts the burden on motorists to be looking out for cyclists where they normally wouldn't be expecting them to appear. I know cyclists like to think 'we can train everyone to change their ways to accommodate us', but I think that train of thought is not only a bit egotistical, but out right dangerous. As David has pointed out repeatedly, the unwritten cues of a road do far more to influence a driver's actions and reactions than any signs ever will ... or can. It's self-delusional to think otherwise.

by Lance on Nov 13, 2008 3:19 pm • link • report

The bike boxes are necessary for the contraflow cyclists, but like Matt I am concerned that drivers will ignore them. Portland did a strong educational campaign when they started installing bike boxes (http://bikeportland.org/cats/infrastructure/bike-boxes/), but that is not easily replicated here since it is one intersection, instead of across the entire city. Should DC install red-light bike-box cameras? Garish signage for drivers? Move the stoplights back so they can only be seen from behind the bike boxes?

This plan needs bollards on the medians at crosswalks to protect waiting pedestrians. See http://www.hawthornestreet.com/images/2008/03/17/raisedmedianwithbollards.jpg for an example.

Did DDOT reveal a proposed signal cycle for this plan? There is the potential for lots of conflict between drivers turning from U to 16th and contraflow cyclists coming out of NH and crossing 16th, both with a green light. What about a “leading interval” for bikes and peds (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lpi-leading-pedestrian-interval/), as we have for peds at 15th and U?

Matt, as for driver resentment that bike boxes might be used as staging areas for red-light running: even with this redesign, U and 16th are pretty dangerous lights to run on a bike due to the high car volume. Red-light running should be addressed in the law (see Idaho -http://bikehugger.com/2007/05/thats_it_im_moving_to_idaho.htm), but even a great design can't prevent red-light running and jaywalking.

Lance: You're right – the cues of a road do more than signage ever could to change user behavior. And this plan clearly changes the cues of the road by eliminating turning slips, creating raised crosswalks on NH, inserting medians and changing pavement color with bike lanes and boxes. It takes a potentially dangerous situation created by a clear "desire path" (contraflow cycling) and changes the streetscape to safely accommodate all users. We all know that behavior is learned. There will be mishaps initially, but with something like contraflow, drivers and pedestrians will learn to expect it near this intersection, especially if it is A) already happening and B) clearly marked.

I second SG - great plan, DDOT - but I will believe it when I see it on the ground!

by Stephen on Nov 13, 2008 8:29 pm • link • report

Sounds nice in theory, but I don't think it'll work well in practice, between how D.C. drivers are and what I've noticed is a general lack of *ANY* traffic enforcement by MPD.

by Froggie on Nov 13, 2008 8:56 pm • link • report

enforcement. that's what the game has always been about. with respect to bike boxes, if the city makes them, and the cops ticket people who park their cars in them at a red light (especially if a bicyclist is present), the word would get around.

by IMGoph on Nov 13, 2008 9:15 pm • link • report

This plan is dangerous, like many of the curb extensions that DDOT has implemented. (Not to mention an unnecessary waste of tax funds that could be better served to pay for Fenty's failure to stay under budget.) When large vehicles have to turn they have less street surface on which to execute the turn, which is already too small of an area. After this, they will have less area on which to execute their turns, and this puts oncoming traffic at a higher risk to collision. Wake up people; DDOT's initiatives are more political that implementations of safer travel.

by Brian on Nov 14, 2008 12:55 pm • link • report

so, Brian, would you care to share your proposal with us? widen the streets and make it as convenient as possible for large SUVs to get around, right? problem solved!

by IMGoph on Nov 14, 2008 1:08 pm • link • report

Brian,

It sounds like you're one of The Overhead Wire's "People of the Book."

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-of-green-book.html

Large vehicles will be able to negotiate this intersection just fine. They might have to slow down a bit. Which is the whole point. Streets for people, not just for cars.

by Alex B. on Nov 14, 2008 1:23 pm • link • report

Brian's got a point for those streets that are truck routes or have articulated buses turning at them (do we even have any articulateds in DC?), or even those large touring buses too for that matter.

However, if those three cases do not apply, *THEN* his argument is moot. Otherwise he has a valid point. I don't have enough info or experience with the area to answer it myself.

by Froggie on Nov 14, 2008 3:00 pm • link • report

well, if they ever added articulated buses to the S lines or the 90 lines, they wouldn't turn when going through that intersection, they'd go straight through, so that's no worry.

i've seen trucks go up and down u street, but they never seem to turn there.

i don't think we have a worry with the superlarge vehicle turning issue here at all.

by IMGoph on Nov 14, 2008 5:14 pm • link • report