Comments on New Jersey Avenue will become 2-way with bike lanes - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by USbike

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:27:31 EDT

MLD The video's primary purpose is to explain the concept of the design at the Dutch intersections. The dimensions are not necessarily to scale; the author even talks about this in one of his new videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XhrQNQV4_G8. Sometimes it can be a problem, but apparently usually not.

You can also check out his blog at http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/. It's very informative about cycling in the Netherlands in general.

Comment by Frank IBC

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:02:42 EDT

I was sure that the word "chock" would have appeared at least once by now.

Comment by K. Conaway

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:32:05 EDT

I think this was well overdue. Traffic going down 395 or New York Avenue backs up along New Jersey and that light on 3rd at M is ridiculously short. I've found myself racing for my train at Union Station because of how close the 96 gets to train time and most of the time is lost sitting at that light in which only three cars can get through at a time and even when the bus comes through the intersection, it's hard to make that left because the light on NY Avenue is red so the bus blocks part of the intersection. DDOT needs to retime those signals to allow for much of the traffic to go through as well as buses, but with this project, making turns onto NY Avenue will be much easier.

Comment by Ward 1 Guy

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:24:31 EDT

These maps are impossible to read. I couldn't follow any of this and I use New Jersey Ave. a lot (on bike).

Comment by Eric

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:21:26 EDT

Why does DDOT continue to stripe bike lanes to the right of right turn only lanes!?! That is very poor design work.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:05:43 EDT

@Admiral Ackbar: +1

Comment by Stanton Park

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:03:45 EDT

Is there some reason why Alternatives 1 and 3 do not close M Street between NY Ave and 3rd St? Alternative 2 shows it is not necessary. This would allow:
+ 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.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:59:26 EDT

@Admiral Ackbar: it is marked with a sign and therefore not a trap for drivers that paying close attention (as they should). But who pays attention all the time? It is just after where the road opens up and the traffic decreases -- most drivers are looking the open pavement. That is why it is a trap.

Comment by Admiral Ackbar

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:09:10 EDT

Drivers that know about this speed trap -- and it is a trap, because the speed limit is artificially low with no bikes or pedestrians

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...

Comment by kk

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:59:35 EDT

To deal with the 395 issue why not just block 2nd Street off north of H Street; this would force people to make a right on Mass or right on H street then a left on New Jersey.

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

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:35:33 EDT

@ 7r3y3r: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.

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

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:01:15 EDT

As for "racing far above the speed limit" to beat traffic light at New York Avenue, try that in heavy traffic.

People do this -- bomb down NJ at 50 mph to beat the lights. I see it all the time during the evening rush.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:56:40 EDT

@Jasper: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/state-of-the-art-bikeway-design-a-further-look/

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.

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:36:11 EDT

"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."
----

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.

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:13:33 EDT

"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."
-----

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?

Comment by oboe

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:30:14 EDT

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.

Ah! Breaking the law to avoid "unnecessary" inconvenience. It's not just for cyclists anymore!

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:21:24 EDT

@ David Alpert:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

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.

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:17:05 EDT

@ 7r3y3r: Sorry, can't find it. I am not very handy with YouTube. I got till http://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:58:03 EDT

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.

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.

Comment by Question

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:07:51 EDT

Imgoph: any evidence that people use NJ now that there is a (well known) speed camera on 395 that everyone slows down to avoid for the requisite number of seconds? I go north through here at least twice a day and I pick nj or 395 based on my mood, traffic and time of day. However rarely is NJ any faster at all. It seems unlikely that someone would use NJ to avoid slowing down for 3 seconds.

Comment by John

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:38:33 EDT

Your original point seems to have been that drivers on NY won't have a light at 3rd, which is true (though I have never actually seen a car on NY stopped at that light). My point is that the double light on 3rd is the real double light problem at this intersection, and this plan doesn't appear to solve it.

Comment by John

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:32:12 EDT

I'll try to be clearer. Today if I drive south on NJ and wish to turn right onto NY, I have to get on a short section of 3rd, then go through a light at M and a second light at NY. Cars attempting this often end up backing up onto NJ and blocking the NJ and N intersection.

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.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:15:26 EDT

John: I'm having a hard time following you, because you've not made the claim that there are no southbound lights at M and New York, but that's not a north/south intersection, so I don't know where you're doing with this.

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.

Comment by John

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:14:20 EDT

[timing at the existing southbound double light onto NY]

Comment by John

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:10:28 EDT

Right, but there are not currently any southbound lights at M and NJ or M and NY because the southbound traffic is diverted into the double light on 3rd. So under plan 3 you end up with 3 southbound lights (3rd and M, NJ and M, NJ and NY) where there currently only 2 (3rd and M, 3rd and NY).

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

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:28:50 EDT

John: There is already a light at M and New Jersey, so no light would be moved there. One would still be removed (the light at 3rd and New York).

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.

Comment by John

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:21:20 EDT

"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." Doesn't plan 3 just move the double light from 3rd and M and 3rd and NY to NJ and M and NJ and NY? If so, the double signal is even closer together and more problematic than the already backed up current configuration.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:19:42 EDT

jimble: That's a good question. I don't recall them saying how high-profile the curbs separating the bike lanes from the rest of the traffic would be.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:19:00 EDT

MDE: The person who presented at the meeting last Wednesday said that it was a sure thing that the 96 would be rerouted. I'm not doubting what you were told, but it's clear they don't have their message straight.

Comment by jimble

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:17:37 EDT

How high are the curbs on the little islands? Seems like a fine line between being high enough to discourage drivers (especially of trucks) from running right over them, yet gentle enough so they don't badly slow the fire engines and ambulances coming from the fire station at NJ and N.

Comment by MDE

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:28:52 EDT

Oh, and I called the DDOT project manager today and asked about the 96. He said that this plan is just draft and they haven't consulted with WMATA yet. He agreed that you need to consider the bus but it sounded like he hadn't considered it yet.

Why is it that "multi-modal" always means "bike/ped/car" nowadays and everyone always forgets about bus transit?

Comment by MDE

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:27:32 EDT

I'm loving that dutch bike lane intersection design. This ways the cars and bikes have to interact at right-angles instead of merging into one another. Brilliant.

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?

Comment by David Alpert

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:05:23 EDT

7373r: Looks like he has another video with some shots of actual intersections like these in the Netherlands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

Comment by David Alpert

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:46:22 EDT

I agree on the crosswalk. By DC law, there is an unmarked crosswalk at every side of every corner, so this is a crosswalk whether or not DDOT stripes it; they should stripe every crosswalk unless there is some very strong reason to believe people really won't walk there.

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.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:44:26 EDT

Jasper: If you go to the youtube page of the Dutch video and click "show more" under the video, there's a link to the creator's webpage that includes photographs and videos of those type of intersections in the Netherlands.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:40:33 EDT

Geoffrey Hatchard: I figured they didn't include a cross walk on the west side of the NJ/NY intersection because they wanted the southbound lane of NJ to be able to turn right on red without waiting for pedestrians. But I agree, people will walk across there anyway. I certainly would jaywalk across one street rather than crossing three streets to get to where I want to go.

Comment by neb

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:25:30 EDT

Great news! And excellent post. Thank you.

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.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:47:20 EDT

drumz: If you click on the last link in the post, you'll see a large PDF that maps the planned changes from N Street all the way down to H Street. You'll see that the change to the intersection of 2nd and New Jersey is that the lanes on 2nd are no longer the "through" lanes. Instead, traffic will have to stop at New Jersey, then either turn left to head north or right to head south.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:34:32 EDT

How will this affect the intersection of 2nd street at NJ ave? When I drive up to U st. I usually take the Mass avenue exit and go up NJ. and right now 2nd street just sort of flows into NJ and then we hit the intersection that is proposed at NY ave. Wouldn't changing NJ into two way necessitate re configuring that intersection?

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.

Comment by andrew

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:24:21 EDT

I certainly wouldn't want that intersection design everywhere, but for junctions of two very busy streets, I think it could work.

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.

Comment by Transport.

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:23:30 EDT

I have a feeling when the new full 11th Street bridge interchange opens (fully connecting DC-295, I-295, and I-695 to/from the Southeast-Southwest Fwy) there will be a lot less traffic on I-395 and cutting across New York Ave to reach Route 50.

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!

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:15:33 EDT

The video says that the Dutch have stopped building bike lanes that continue straight through in favor of this configuration.

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.

Comment by Tom Veil

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:05:23 EDT

The NJ Ave lanes are a wonderful idea. I have accidentally ended up going the wrong way on NJ Ave twice, which is a bit embarrassing to admit, except I'm certain that thousands of people have done the same, because the current road is so odd.

Oh, and that Dutch video? Sooooooo pretty! I want that at every intersection in the L'Enfant city. Now. :)

Comment by andrew

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:00:03 EDT

This is awesome, and could provide one of the first safe bicycle crossings of NY Ave.

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.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:58:04 EDT

7r3y3r: It would appear that the lack of a crosswalk across New York Avenue at this point is part of the problem. I believe DDOT should add one to this side of the street as well. People will want to walk across the street there, and they won't take the time to walk across the other three crosswalks to get there.

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.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:53:40 EDT

Not sure why DDOT didn't make the SW corner of NY & NJ like that of NY & K (or even the other three corners of the NY & NJ interstection). I have a feeling that the separation between the stop line and the rounded corner will lead to cars turning earlier than they should and runing over the bike curb/bulb.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:33:41 EDT

MLD: I brought up a similar request (actually wanted to know whether it would be possible to get bike lanes all the way from Florida Avenue in the north to the Capitol grounds in the south). I'd highly recommend emailing DDOT or showing up at the next meeting to let them know your preference! They're certainly open to community suggestion at this point.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:31:55 EDT

Josh: To the best of my knowledge, there was no discussion (that I heard) about the streetcar and where it would be routed or how this project would tie in with that.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:30:56 EDT

Steve S.: Yes, DDOT indicated at the meeting that the 96 will be rerouted onto southbound New Jersey Avenue when the project is complete.

Comment by Steve S.

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:29:48 EDT

Will the 96 bus be rerouted? They should add a queue jump lane for the bus headed south on NJ at NY Ave. The bus which is going south always gets stuck in traffic turning right onto New York Ave.

Comment by Josh

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:29:22 EDT

Does anyone have any information on how the streetcar line will tie in to a rebuilt New Jersey Avenue? From what I have seen of the plans, the streetcar line is supposed to be extended westbound on H Street over the Hopscotch Bridge, turn north at New Jersey Avenue, then turn west on K Street to head downtown (and going around Mt. Vernon Square). Is this still the plan?

Comment by MLD

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:28:26 EDT

Ooh, I like this design for the bike lanes at intersections. Though the explanation at 1:33 in the video is a little off - you can't really wait there on a bike since you will be in the way of bike traffic going perpendicular to you.

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.

Comment by JustMe

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:20:56 EDT

. 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!