Roads
New Jersey Avenue will become 2-way with bike lanes
Much of New Jersey Avenue NW through the Mount Vernon Triangle area has essentially been a one-way off-ramp for I-395 for years. DDOT wants to turn this broad avenue back into a 2-way neighborhood street, add bicycle lanes, and have the bike lanes cross the intersection in a way that would be new to DC but is common in the Netherlands.
Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.
Currently, New Jersey Avenue NW is a 2-way street north of New York Avenue and south of I Street. In between, it's one-way northbound. Traffic getting off I-395 north at Massachusetts Avenue takes 2nd Street NW to New Jersey Avenue, which has 4 northbound lanes at I Street.
Drivers then race far above the speed limit to try to make it through the traffic light at New York Avenue, either continuing north into Shaw or turning right to get onto New York Avenue eastbound. Since MPD added a speed camera on 395, some cars use New Jersey Avenue as a de facto replacement for the interstate highway to avoid tickets.
As part of the Mount Vernon Triangle Action Agenda, DDOT is returning some 1-way streets in the neighborhood to 2-way. As new businesses and residents move into the neighborhood, the city wants to make the streets safer for all modes, instead of just being extended on- and off-ramps for the interstate highway stub.
Since 2006, DC has done this on the 400 block of L Street NW and 4th Street between L and Massachusetts. New Jersey Avenue is the next road in the neighborhood to get the two-way treatment, and the intersection with New York Avenue is the trickiest part of that project.
Proposed design includes 2-way traffic and bike lanes
As part of the presentation last Wednesday, the traffic engineers who have been working with DDOT presented 3 plans for that busy corner. The first plan did not include dedicated space for cyclists, but bike lanes were added to produce the third plan, DDOT's preferred choice.
The second plan, which was produced in-house by DDOT, essentially added slip lanes to all four corners of the intersection. This plan, which thankfully appears to have been thoroughly rejected, would have sacrificed pedestrian and cyclist safety in favor of moving automobiles through the intersection as quickly as possible.
Two additional benefits of this project are more usable park space and fewer traffic lights. The short stretch of 3rd Street between New York Avenue and M Street will be closed, allowing the small open space nearby to become a larger park. In addition, there will no longer be traffic signals at 3rd and New York, reducing confusion at a point where traffic lights are less than 100 feet apart on one stretch of a major road.
DDOT suggests different bike lane arrangement
The project team further refined the 3rd plan to add in a bike lane configuration new to DC, where the bike lanes follow the curb at intersections and bicyclists cross near the crosswalks. DDOT is proposing this at the 2 busiest intersections, New York Avenue and K Street.
Proposed bicycle lane arrangement in the intersection.
WashCycle pointed out this video, which describes this type of bike lane arrangement and why it could be safer and better than the classic setup. The video says that the Dutch have stopped building bike lanes that continue straight through in favor of this configuration.
At a meeting last week where DDOT presented the plan, some people worried that the small islands that would separate the bike lanes from automobile lanes at these corners would make it difficult to plow in the winter or utilize street sweepers in the warmer months.
Here's a map of the final recommended alternative.
 | Geoff Hatchard is a geographer working for the U.S. Census Bureau. He lives in DC's Trinidad neighborhood. The opinions and views expressed in Geoff's writing on this blog are his, and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
Unintended consequences in action!
by JustMe on Aug 1, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
NJ Avenue definitely needs these improvements - but the bike lanes should to all the way to Q/R streets to provide connectivity to the north and west. Connecting to N street is pretty good though - put some sharrows on N to provide a better connection to bike lanes on 5th.
by MLD on Aug 1, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report
by Josh on Aug 1, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report
by Steve S. on Aug 1, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Aug 1, 2012 3:53 pm • link • report
Might as well make legal what will essentially be a "desire line" once the road is complete.
It's worth noting (and I should have included this in my write-up, but sometimes you remember things after the fact) that there was a request to include an "all red" phase to the lights here to create a Barnes Dance similar to the corner of 7th and H NW in Chinatown.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report
Right now, cyclists traveling between Columbia Heights and Capitol Hill are faced with a number of unappealing choices, and the one-way-ness of NJ Ave has long been an impediment to anybody traveling southeast from the U St area.
by andrew on Aug 1, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report
Oh, and that Dutch video? Sooooooo pretty! I want that at every intersection in the L'Enfant city. Now. :)
by Tom Veil on Aug 1, 2012 4:05 pm • link • report
That video is bogus. I have never seen such an intersection in the Netherlands.
The reason why bikers and cars clash in America is the turn-on-red - a typical American traffic rule that does not exist elsewhere. Because there is no turn on red, there is no need to separate right-turn lanes. Furthermore, bikers in the Netherlands stop to the right to cars, not in front of them. Surprisingly (for Americans), bikers going straight then have the right of way over turning cars. And that is because ALL straight going traffic has the right of way over crossing traffic.
Moving to the content of the video itself. The solution it proposes is beyond unhandy. First, it puts the crossing biker straight in the way of a biker that would come from the bottom. And I have no clue how the solution for a left turn would work. In stead of having to cross one stream of traffic, bikers now need to cross two streams of traffic, AND be in the way of other bikers TWICE.
by Jasper on Aug 1, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
I am a supporter of the 11th Street bridge project and commented in the past on GGW how I think this project may cut traffic using NY Ave as a freeway connection and should allow DDOT to transform NY Ave into more of a community-friendly roadway with bike lanes and/or parallel parking and at least a new bus route to bring people downtown from the NE part of the corridor (Ft. Lincoln, Brentwood, relief for the existing G8 bus).
@JustMe
. Since MPD added a speed camera on 395, some cars use New Jersey Avenue as a de facto replacement for the interstate highway to avoid tickets.
Unintended consequences in action!
In addition to what you note, the unintended consequence of ill-timed traffic signals is speeding traffic to "beat" the awful timing. Watch drivers, including operators of the G2 bus, speed around the ill-timed Logan Circle signals to avoid unnecessary watiting at empty intersections.
by Transport. on Aug 1, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
As it stands, there's no way in hell that you're going to be able to make a normal left turn on NY Ave on a bike. This workaround is....acceptably good.
by andrew on Aug 1, 2012 4:24 pm • link • report
Other than that, I'm supportive of this from what I've read, I just want to know how it will work a little further south.
by drumz on Aug 1, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 4:47 pm • link • report
The bike facility at NY Ave sounds promising, but I'm a bit nervous about moving right-turning car traffic hooking the through-intersection bikes. Bringing the bicyclist over may actually give the appearance that they are turning right or will make them less visible. One solution would be to find a wy to slow the right turning traffic before the intersection so they would have time to sight the bicyclist. You could provide a speed hump, or perhaps rumble strips.
Another solution would be to try mixing zone design here. There seems to be enough room to send right turning traffic into a mixed zone for bike and cars to turn.
In any case, it seems safe to add the crossing on the other side of NY Ave. If it is not safe to cross I would see the reason for not providing it, but it looks the exact same as the other side.
by neb on Aug 1, 2012 5:25 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Aug 1, 2012 5:40 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Aug 1, 2012 5:44 pm • link • report
This plan seems to do a lot of good, but I noticed on the powerpoint that they still classified vehicular level of service as 60% of the score for each alternative. That means that to the folks who wrote this, moving cars is still more important than everything else put together.
That needs to change; LOS can be a part of things (though there was a link this morning about how Portland is moving away from it entirely), but it shouldn't outweigh everything else.
The traffic engineers at DDOT often seem to conclude that they can design an intersection to be unsafe to cross in one direction in order to move cars faster. They should instead have as a design constraint that they have to make every direction safe to walk or bike as well as drive.
by David Alpert on Aug 1, 2012 5:46 pm • link • report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8
by David Alpert on Aug 1, 2012 6:05 pm • link • report
If we can plow the 15th street cycletrack with our little half-lane plows, why can't we plow the slivers of roadway set aside by the little islands?
by MDE on Aug 1, 2012 6:27 pm • link • report
Why is it that "multi-modal" always means "bike/ped/car" nowadays and everyone always forgets about bus transit?
by MDE on Aug 1, 2012 6:28 pm • link • report
by jimble on Aug 1, 2012 8:17 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 8:19 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 8:19 pm • link • report
by John on Aug 1, 2012 10:21 pm • link • report
The light at 3rd and New Jersey is close to the one at New York and New Jersey. In order to avoid box-blocking, the lights will need to be timed so (let's look at southbound traffic) the light would turn red at M and New Jersey first, then at New York and New Jersey.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 10:28 pm • link • report
My concern is that the light timing at the existing southbound double light onto NJ is pretty bad, with traffic often backing up and box blocking the NJ and N intersection (for whatever reason, M doesn't get box blocked, though westbound traffic through 3rd is light to nonexistent). Moving the southbound double light to NJ, and puting the lights closer together, AND creating a single right turn lane on to NY rather than the current double right turn could make the NJ backup worse, unless major timing changes are made on NJ and NY
by John on Aug 1, 2012 11:10 pm • link • report
by John on Aug 1, 2012 11:14 pm • link • report
Suffice it to say there will be fewer lights near the redesigned intersection than there are now, and the traffic engineers are well aware of the need to make sure the timing is adjusted to ensure the traffic flows well.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 1, 2012 11:15 pm • link • report
Under the new plan, as I read it, to make the same right turn from NJ onto NY I would still have to pass through 2 lights (M and NY), with the only difference being that those lights are on NJ rather than 3rd, and are even closer together than the existing lights on 3rd.
I see this as likely to continue backing up southbound NJ traffic past N street to the north.
by John on Aug 1, 2012 11:32 pm • link • report
by John on Aug 1, 2012 11:38 pm • link • report
by Question on Aug 2, 2012 8:07 am • link • report
No. Drivers that know about this speed trap -- and it is a trap, because the speed limit is artificially low with no bikes or pedestrians -- they slow down.
Nobody would get off 395 for this reason because even at legal speed, it is 2-3 times quicker than waiting for multiple lights on NJ Ave. Moreover, you can easily determine how many divert onto NJ by looking at the number of drivers taking the right onto NY Ave: hardly any. That intersection reveals true intentions: nearly all continue north on NJ, to Shaw and other points north.
by goldfish on Aug 2, 2012 8:58 am • link • report
by Jasper on Aug 2, 2012 9:17 am • link • report
Ok, but those are not what's shown in the video. The ones in this video are completely separated bike lanes (at least at the light) with independent traffic lights for bikers.
by Jasper on Aug 2, 2012 9:21 am • link • report
Ah! Breaking the law to avoid "unnecessary" inconvenience. It's not just for cyclists anymore!
by oboe on Aug 2, 2012 9:30 am • link • report
-----
Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense.
Why would any driver - especially someone in a hurry - leave 395 and deal with traffic lights and slow-moving traffic when they can just slow down for a few seconds at the 395 speed camera and speed up once out of the camera's range?
by ceefer66 on Aug 2, 2012 10:13 am • link • report
----
The driver-hate so often shown here sometimes drifts towards the sublime.
As I and others have pointed out, it is simply unimaginable that someone would exit I-395, join slow-moving traffic, and negotiate traffic lights and pedestrians on NJ Avenue just to avoid a speed camera. Especially when all one has to do is slow down for a few seconds then accelerate once out of camera range.
As for "racing far above the speed limit" to beat traffic light at New York Avenue, try that in heavy traffic.
Some here don't like to hear it, but the situation on NJ Avenueis what happens when traffic that belongs on an expressway is forced to use city streets due to lack of a through route. This is what the freeway fighters back in the '70's "won" for the people of DC when they got I-95 through NE canceled.
In any event, that's in the past. By some miracle, the District FINALLY took its head out of the sand, admitted that everyone can't use "alternatives", and decided to fully connect 395 and 295 via the 11th St. Bridge (Thank you, Gabe Klein). Once that project is completed, much of the traffic that messes up NJ and NY Avenues will go away.
by ceefer66 on Aug 2, 2012 10:36 am • link • report
Yes, the bike lanes in NL are separated with a curb as opposed to a white line but, really, the function is the same. And, you're right, in NL they have separate signals for bike and auto traffic that makes the intersection more efficient. But the video's point is nevertheless true: having cars merge through a bike lane before turning is much less safe than having the car merge through the lane as it's turning, due to the angles involved.
I assume the point you're getting to is that without separated signals, turning right becomes nearly impossible. Cars would essentially have to wait until there were no bicycles or do a right-on-red. So, yes, a separated signal would be best so that everyone gets an opportunity to make their move.
by 7r3y3r on Aug 2, 2012 10:56 am • link • report
People do this -- bomb down NJ at 50 mph to beat the lights. I see it all the time during the evening rush.
by goldfish on Aug 2, 2012 11:01 am • link • report
Oh, I agree with that. I think it's pretty stupid that in DC cars are supposed to merge into bike lanes when turning. But, that is a consequence of the turn-on-red that is a uniquely American move, and very bike unfriendly.
I assume the point you're getting to is that without separated signals, turning right becomes nearly impossible.
Not really. Bikes bunch up pretty well and are gone within seconds. Bikes lights are integrated with the other light to provide the most efficient flow of traffic.
One thing the complete separation of bikes and cars [on intersections] does is narrow the roadway for cars. Which is a very efficient way to slow down cars and make the more aware of their surroundings. The fact that most corners at intersections here are curved to facilitate drivers is a massive hindrance to slower traffic modes: bikers and pedestrians. Bulb-out fix that problem to a large degree. Refuge islands do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_island
by Jasper on Aug 2, 2012 11:35 am • link • report
Next they should do M Street its stupid to have the street shuffle between one way and two way about 3 or 4 times across DC
by kk on Aug 2, 2012 11:59 am • link • report
Look, I'm something of an expert on traps. And when you create a trap, you don't warn people about them beforehand - with signs about what the rules are and about photo enforcement and with publicly available information. If people know about the trap - then it isn't much of a trap, is it?
If only I had known that it was a fully armed and operational battle station...
by Admiral Ackbar on Aug 2, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Aug 2, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report
+ elimination of right turns from west bound NY Ave, moving them to M Street
+ elimination of the block-the-box problem for southbound traffic on NJ Ave
+ 4th St to be one way northbound between NY Ave and M St (it is already one-way northbound north of M St)
+ M St to be two way between 3rd St and 4th St
+ simplification of the 4th St. intersection with no southbound traffic at NY Ave.
by Stanton Park on Aug 2, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Aug 2, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report
by Eric on Aug 2, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 2, 2012 7:24 pm • link • report
by K. Conaway on Aug 2, 2012 10:32 pm • link • report
by Frank IBC on Aug 3, 2012 12:02 am • link • report
You can also check out his blog at http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/. It's very informative about cycling in the Netherlands in general.
by USbike on Nov 7, 2012 10:27 pm • link • report
Add a Comment