why are bicycle signals any more expensive to install than regular auto signals?

and why do people always seem to think that any new bicycle infrastructure must always be done as CHEAPLY as possible?

This is total BS.

In stall the damn signals- and make them manditory on all new dedicated bikelanes .

Screw the cheap a$$ed aito-centric car /traffic engineers who never walk and never bike and never take transit. They are imbeciles and should be scorned.

by w on Oct 23, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Thanks for the post -- this is great! I live at 18th and Harvard and have been wanting a safe, easy way to go north-south. 14th St. isn't bad, but it looks like 15th might be even better.

A few notes:
- people usually don't go more than 25 mph on 15th st. because the lights are time
- for cars 15th st. is fantastic -- bar none, it's the fastest way to get north in that part of town.
- contraflow bicyclists might have problems with the timed lights, though. It's sometimes a pain going against them.
- I love the buffer between the cyclists and the bikes.

by ditro on Oct 23, 2009 2:06 pm • link • report

I sometimes am a perfectionist / idealist myself, but this is definitely a time when we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is tremendous, deserves copious applause and I hope it rapidly fills up with bikes.

by Josh S on Oct 23, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report

Hey w, simmer down a bit... there exists a non-trivial number of us who would LOVE nothing more than to be able to walk/bike/transit everywhere, but unfortunately work in locations not served by transit (and I'm talking way-far not served -- out in Herndon).

That said, as someone who has to drive in DC more than I'd like, I'm really excited by this. I'm always very careful when sharing the road with cyclists, but as a driver, it's still scary. All too often, I see cyclists not taking a defensive posture, cutting in and out of traffic, etc.

Hopefully this will be successful on 15th street, and see wider deployment!

by Chris on Oct 23, 2009 2:33 pm • link • report

Chris

"simmer down" for who or for what?

I do not have a car and I also do not ride fast on my bicycle- I am not an athletic skinny guy in tights nor am I a mountain biker- I happen to use my bike as
PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION
and not as recreation.

OK- I respect that you have to live where you live and do what you do- not everyone can be like me everywhere and I would not wish this on the world either- however-
please try to consider those of us who actually live in DC who need to carry home groceries and run errands on the cargo bike - I for one do not like riding my bike in the street with cars- and in all of the countries with a large mode share of cyclists- there exists dedicated separated bikeways just about everywhere.

Speed is never a very important thing for me, and I always use a bell and consider the rights of the pedestrians- and we need more of this kind of thing.

I recommend that everyone visit Germany or Holland- where even in the smallest towns there is bike infrastructure that makes our best cities in the USA look paltry by comparison.

Sorry- but to you I might seem radical- in Europe or China I would be normal as far as my expectations of bicycle facilities.

by w on Oct 23, 2009 2:47 pm • link • report

People think everything must be done as cheaply as possible. The lights can always be added back in and it's possible all they'll need is new lenses.

by David C on Oct 23, 2009 2:55 pm • link • report

W,

I think what he's getting at is that you seem to want this done fast and done right. Realistically, adding in a real budget, there are some tradeoffs that need to be made.

You can add lights later. You want them now? It's gonna cost and will delay everything.

I think everyone appreciates the enthusiasm, but life is full of trade-offs like this. I don't think it's all that helpful for the first feedback to be "This is total BS." How about "Great start, let's keep it up and keep raising the bar" or something along those lines.

by Alex B. on Oct 23, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report

w, sorry if I wasn't clear... what I was suggesting the "simmer down" to was the end of your comment:

"Screw the cheap a$$ed aito-centric car /traffic engineers who never walk and never bike and never take transit. They are imbeciles and should be scorned."

It came across as a little judgmental and "my way or the highway." My partner is a Civil Engineer (who sold his car when we moved to DC, and takes Metro to work... although he's not working in transportation engineering right now), a lot of what they do is constrained by code, and municipal reviewers (the stories I've heard about the ridiculous feedback coming back from city/county reviewers...).

And I think you misread my comment, I'm *excited* about this development. As someone who had to use my car more often than I'd desire, I'm constantly worried about the safety of cyclists around me, I'm glad to see more systemic safety precautions (not to mention, better efficiency for cyclists and motorists) being put into place.

And I've visited Germany and Holland (I spent 6 months working abroad in Amsterdam, in fact). I would be *ecstatic* if we had anywhere near the bicycle and transit infrastructure I was able to make use of there.

by Chris on Oct 23, 2009 2:58 pm • link • report

Fantastic news! Congrats to Gabe Klein and co. for getting the ball rolling. Every day cycling becomes more legitimate in this city. I, for one, will be biking this street every single day.

Now...bike boxes on 11th street?

by JTS on Oct 23, 2009 3:00 pm • link • report

..didnt mean to sound off against people who are truly interested in change- but the truth is- we are way behind a lot of the civilized world in these matters.

There are some highway / transportation engineers who get it- but the truth of the matter is- just as you point out, Chris, a lot of them are beholden to old codes that are car-centric and obsolete.

And there are the majority who consider nothing but cars. To be fair- cars are the major mode of transportation in much of the country- but this is about to change.

Absolutely- this is excellent development - but I also consider the "cheapness" aspect a major problem- we also run into this with trains- the powers that be do not not wish to spend "too much " on mass transit and HSR , that kind of thing- but the same people do not even flinch when a highway cost mega billions and just gets clogged up w/ more cars after 2 years - and then they have to build another lane- and another lane......

So I remain un-apologetic about my hurry up yesterday stance. We spend next to nothing- even in DC- on making bicycling safer and user friendly. It shows- go out and see how many elderly people, how many little kids, how many women are out there cycling- and Im not talking about the recreational cyclists- but the ones buying their groceries on bikes, that kind of thing. We need to do more.Regular everyday people need to feel safe about climbing on a bicycle.

This is a great step- but like all bike infrastructure in DC- it is a scattershot and incomplete exercise , designed to be one that starts and stops nowhere. We need more of these bikeways - yes - and they need to connect up.

Chris- you see the light- and Im glad that you acknowledge the progress made overseas- many do not or try to play it down or make excuses. Not trying to sound too harsh- but I remain skeptical to say the least.

Ans as far as the bike sharing programs- they are going to HAVE to build more dedicated bikeways if they expect people to use these new bikes safely. Riding in the streets with cars is not at all safe- no matter what that vehicular cycling crazy Forester says.

by w on Oct 23, 2009 3:21 pm • link • report

My point is that if you want things done fast, you're going to have to accept that they'll also be cheap. You can re-stripe a road in a week, like this. You can't add bike traffic lights in a week.

By all means, push folks to add in this infrastructure. But don't slam them because your objectives are impossible to meet.

by Alex B. on Oct 23, 2009 3:37 pm • link • report

@ JTS: where would you like to see bike boxes on 11th? We are looking for suggestions.

by Eric on Oct 23, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report

I really wish that the cycletrack was two-way. At 9', I bet that we will see cyclists riding both north and south. I'm not condoning or complaining, but that's what we will probably see.

It's great to see this moving! I got worried when I didn't hear anything for a while. Hopefully using this as a "proof of concept", DDOT can quickly deploy more around the city.

Next is a network of bike stations. I could see Dupont, U Street, Metro Center and Adams Morgan as Phase 1... These locations would cater to more of the urban neighborhood "everyday" cyclists, which the Union Station one doesn't.

Anyone else think so?

by Justin from ReadysetDC on Oct 23, 2009 4:03 pm • link • report

@w I appreciate your passion but I think the district is making some excellent strides in the right direction. I moved back here from philly two years ago and in that short time I've seen cycling explode. and I'm not just talking about young white guys. I see young families biking to school and work every day.

The point is that no city will become Copenhagen overnight. But the city - in conjunction with WABA - is taking real, tangible steps to increase access and lower barriers to cycling. a 15th street contraflow will enable a cyclist to travel by bike lane from Howard University to Georgetown (and Bethesda by dedicated bike/ped lane). We've got bike share (which sucks), and a DDOT director signaling that the city is getting ready to find a new partner to expand the program exponentially. We have a bikestation, one of like two in America, and certainly the nicest. Neither endeavor is cheap, and the city understand the value of inducing demand on cycling infrastructure by building more of it.

So, again, I understand your frustration. It would be nice to wake up tomorrow and see a DC that was filled with cyclists and pedestrians, sharrows and BRT, streetcars and segways. We'll be there in 10 years. Remember, it took Copenhagen 50 years.

by JTS on Oct 23, 2009 4:05 pm • link • report

First off congrats to Gabe Klein and DOT for providing an excellent solution and adding one more piece to the biking infrastructure puzzle.

I wanted to point out a related issue on a street a bit farther east that could use a similiar type makeover or at the minimum a study. I am referring to 6th street between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Two narrow lanes in each direction coupled with masses of turning traffic causes a lot of rally car type behavior, with speeds regularly exceeding 35+, and lots of lane changing. Exiting and entering cars parked on the side of the 6th in very tight street side parking is dangerous. Biking on 6th street is very challenging but the alternative one block over is dodging buses in the incomplete 7th st bike lanes.

One lane in each direction on 6th with designated turning lanes and properly timed lights could keep the throughput of cars the same. Some combination of parking (slanted or parallel) and some bike lanes on either side of the street and you have a much more functional and safer street. 6th would become an excellent north/south route for bikers from downtown into Shaw, U street, Ledroit, Bloomingdale, etc. 6th street already narrows as it crosses RI on its way to Florida so you would continue the same lane pattern. All you should have to do is paint some lines on the street, and time the lights (with signs advising motorists that the lights are timed; similiar to Connecticut ave).

Who do we have to talk to about this? ANC2C Kevin Chappelle? Can we just send this request straight to DDOT? Do people from DDOT lurk on GGW and read the comments?? :)

by Chris R on Oct 23, 2009 4:06 pm • link • report

DANGER: ambiguity and complexity ahead.

by crin on Oct 23, 2009 4:07 pm • link • report

@Eric - since 11th is currently torn up between Mass Ave and RIA, I think this would be a great opportunity to paint lanes and bike boxes when they are finished - sigh - tearing up the old street car tracks. There are tons of commuters that currently use 10th and/or 12th because 11th is under construction. It may even work all the way to 1th and Vermont Ave. Just my two cents. Sorry everyone for spamming the comment thread.

by JTS on Oct 23, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

Adding bicycle traffic signals would cost significantly more than the entire project. Would you prefer to have signals on this road, or three or four more dedicated bike lane projects? I'll take more bike lanes.

by jcm on Oct 23, 2009 4:23 pm • link • report

@JTS, sadly, because of the way the planning, engineering and review/approval processes work, I doubt there would be time to make changes like that mid-construction.

by Chris on Oct 23, 2009 4:26 pm • link • report

Looks like an excellent plan, but I bet there will be plenty of illegal parking on Sunday to endanger cyclists. Fortunately, Sunday morning traffic tends to be lighter anyway.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 23, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report

This will be interesting to watch. I remember the neighborhood meeting where DDOT pretended to be taking suggestions for 'redoing the street' amoung which the options were two way traffic for vehicles. When DDOT released its conclusions from the meeting it became clear why it'd been the department within DDOT that handles bicycles that had run the meeting ... They weren't really asking for community input on what it really wanted done with 15th Street, they just wanted justification for making 15th a guinea pig for their cycle lane experiments. As David points out, this isn't a separated bike lane like in other countries or even in other cities here in the US. We're on unchartered ground. This is clearly dangerous ... and a street where the one way traffic pattern encourages high volume rush hour traffic gunning it at speeds often approaching 50 mph is hardly the right place to be conducting this experiment.

Additionally, 15th Street was originally designed and built out as a quiet residential street ... Error were made in the mid-part of the last century when it was widened and made one way as part of a feeder system of roads for the T Street freeway which never got built. Using today to expediate bicycling commuting in addition to the automobile commuting doesn't make things better ... it just makes them worse. And the experiment of combining high speed bicyclists going one way on this street with high speed motorists on the other ... at the cheapest cost possible, is a sure recipe for disaster.

They neighbors should have demanded that the street go back to two way with 4 way stops installed at all intersections. That would have made it safe for all, made it a more livable place for people living on either side of it, and not allowed this dangerous experiment to occur in our neighborhood.

by Lance on Oct 23, 2009 5:29 pm • link • report

Bike boxes are also needed at 11th and Florida, particularly southbound.

by jeff on Oct 23, 2009 5:44 pm • link • report

@Chris

the project is already way past due. This is where I find myself in agreement with w's sentiments. A little vision and desire to experiment can go a long way. There is no reason for a study or anything like that. Just try it out - I mean, the road is already under construction. If it doesnt work, it can be removed at a very low cost.

by JTS on Oct 23, 2009 5:53 pm • link • report

Justin, I agree. Theres no need to make the bike lane 9 feet, unless the goal is two way bike traffic.

9 feet is big enough to fit a car! A bike news only 3 feet, 5 feet for extra comfort.

by J on Oct 23, 2009 10:58 pm • link • report

This seems extremely dangerous for the bikes. The southbound bikes will be hidden behind parked cars and the first time they will be seen by left-turning cars will be too late to avoid head-on collision. I want cars to be able to see me when I ride. Thanks, but I'll avoid this bike lane until it's revised and hopefully that will be before the first death.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 25, 2009 12:10 am • link • report

Germany has other ideas to promote bicycle use.

See

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-greenest-little-whorehouse-in-germany/

by Mike Licht on Oct 25, 2009 9:13 am • link • report

@w:
Bicycle signals are NOT more expensive to install than auto signals. This project involves only lane striping and resigning of the street.

No new signals are being installed. Since 15th Street is one-way northbound, all the signals are south-facing. With the implementation of a southbound, contra-flow cycle track, cyclists will not have any facing traffic signals.

The only way to give cyclists signals would be to install new ones. Those cost money. More money equals a longer time to implement the project.

Now, that doesn't meant that DDOT shouldn't install the signals, but holding out for a perfect solution means that you're holding out.

Would you rather have a contra-flow lane without signals or would you rather have the current situation?

This is an excellent project. DDOT should be commended for it and for the other great projects they've been working on over the past few years. If this project works well, it can easily be the first of many.

by Matt Johnson on Oct 26, 2009 11:06 am • link • report

But if this experiment is a disaster it could cripple future bike lane proposals for a while. I can't imagine anyplace in the world has ever hidden bikes behind a row of parked cars where turning cars cannot see them in time.

The only signals needed are left turn arrows for cars added to existing lights that co-ordinate with stop signals for bikes and pedestrians.

The only other safe alternative is to do away with the already reduced lane of parked cars so that bikes will be clearly visable. This would free up another lane for cars so that 15th could be 2 lanes south and two lanes north. Many residents suggested this but were ignored. It would slow 15th down and make it safer for pedestrians, bikes and cars.

Keeping the high-speed, one-way, freeway-access design of 15th there now without co-ordinated turn signals is a receipt for disaster (and we've had several).

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 26, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

Im not against this- it is just that it seems incomplete to me- and not planned out as well as it could be.

To me, it is really important for all new bikeways to have 2 directions so that cyclists do not have to skip over to the next street with a bikeway to be able to ride safely.

I also think that all new bikeways should be physically separated from the roads and auto traffic- evidently this is not being done. It is the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE way to make a bikelane or bikeway.

by w on Oct 26, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report

Hello W,

I think your comments are excellent, to the point(s) and passionate.

I would like to talk with you more about some issues related to bicycle infrastructure. Please email me at: bicycleutopia@gmail.com

Best regards,
Mike

by mike on Oct 30, 2009 10:51 am • link • report

1. I wouldn't call this a "cycle track" - that term is being applied to too many varying things. Looks more like a contraflow bike lane with a median.

2. The 9 ft lane will likely be much easier to sweep & plow.

3. Are there going to be legal issues (i.e. enforcement, fault-in-crash, etc.) in controlling the SB bikes with just a WALK/DONT WALK signal? If so, the District could put up standard signal heads with a "BICYCLE SIGNAL" plaque below and not have to use special equipment.

4. The design of the NB regulatory sign seems to say that "Bikes with funny chevrons hanging over their heads" can use the full travel lane. It might be a much better idea to use the standard bike symbol (as seen in the proposed MUTCD sign for this situation).

5. The diagram doesn't show cross-street signing. It might be best to replace any existing ONE WAY signs with symbolic 'no left turn' or 'no right turn' signs with "EXCEPT BICYCLES" plaques below. That might provide a clearer message as to what's not wanted, and reduce the chance that drivers will interpret 15th as a purely one-way street (because it isn't anymore...)

6. It would be very interesting (and useful) if possible to measure the following:
- Number & % of cyclists riding on sidewalks (before/after)
- Number & % of cyclists riding wrong-way in the contraflow lane
- Number & % of cyclists using the right lane NB (before/after)
- Number of pedestrians walking in the contraflow lane

by Richard C. Moeur on Nov 9, 2009 9:53 pm • link • report