Connect bike lanes through closed Pennsylvania Avenue

Bicycling

Connect bike lanes through closed Pennsylvania Avenue

by Erik Weber • April 22, 2010 11:44 am

In early March, DDOT presented an exciting plan for bike lanes across downtown DC. They are a fantastic step forward, painted lanes or not. Yet there's one piece DDOT didn't present: a marked bike lane on Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House.

Pennsylvania Avenue: home to bikes, peds, and skates.

Since the two most famous blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue, from 15th to 17th, were closed to traffic, they have provided an enjoyable respite for tourists and DC residents alike from the constant District traffic, a rare positive side effect of otherwise onerous security measures.

Walk past the White House on a sunny weekday afternoon and you will observe an eclectic mix of pedestrian, cycle, segway, rollerblade, and other traffic along these two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue. The lack of automobile traffic draws a variety of populations to the area, but these populations have differing, and often conflicting, intentions. Masses of tourists mingle and meander about, taking pictures, gawking at protesters, and admiring the White House. Meanwhile, cyclists fly through the flat, carless area sometimes at speeds up to 30 20 mph, rollerbladers skate past, or set up makeshift street hockey rinks.

There's room for everyone on the wide avenue, but this mix of traffic can often cause risky situations. I am hardly an apologist for scofflaw cyclists who ride erratically, but even the most cautious cyclist or skater will find it hard to avoid a group of 15 oblivious White House gawkers or an amateur photographer who step suddenly into their path.

I have been commuting to and from work through these blocks for nearly a month now, and have seen or had several close calls already. Curious whether it has ever come to more than a close call, I asked one of the Secret Service officers whether there have ever been accidents between pedestrians and cyclists or skaters. His response? "Oh yeah!" Asked how often he's witnessed an accident, he said, "it doesn't happen too frequently, but I've definitely seen it happen a couple times."

With DDOT's plans to expand bike lanes in downtown, the danger to pedestrian, cyclists and skaters on these blocks can only worsen. According to the plans presented at DDOT's public announcement last month, the 15th Street bike lanes will be extended into downtown from their current terminus at Massachusetts Ave to I Street, from which the lanes will continue across onto what is Vermont Avenue.

At H Street, the lanes will terminate while DDOT explores options to continue them through Lafayette Square. On the south side of the intersection with New York Avenue, the 15th Street lanes will resume, only this time as a bidirectional cycletrack, on the west side of 15th, where it will continue south to the Mall.

No plan for Lafayette Square.

As Matt Johnson pointed out, at the time of the announcement, DDOT is unsure how it will connect the bike lanes on Vermont Ave to the cycletrack on 15th Street south of New York Ave. In the meantime, the plans anticipate what will likely happen: cyclists will continue across H Street onto Madison Place in Lafayette Square and onto Pennsylvania Avenue past the Treasury out to 15th. Additionally, DDOT plans to add bike lanes in both directions on New York Avenue directly across 15th Street from the 1500 block of Pennsylvania.

These proposals will undeniably increase the bike traffic traversing these two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue, which, incidentally, are already designated by Google Maps as having bike lanes. As DDOT explores options to connect the 15th Street lanes through Lafayette Square, it should also consider adding marked lanes on the pavement along these two blocks.

Marked lanes wouldn't stop people from walking along the bike lane, but some paint suggesting where is appropriate for higher-speed cyclists and where is appropriate for stationary photo-takers would likely help everyone share the space harmoniously.

32 comments

Tags: bike lanes, DC, downtown DC, Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes

DDOT shares downtown bicycle facility plans (Mar 19, 2010)
Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track slated for May (Mar 10, 2010)
NPS, Secret Service close to approving 15th Street bike lane (Oct 20, 2010)
Downtown bike lane proposal needs fixes at the ends (Mar 22, 2010)
Pennsylvania Ave bike lanes now have (some) pylons (Jun 20, 2010)

Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone.

Comments
Add a comment »

This sounds a lot like designing a "forgiving street" for bicyclists, even though we all seem to agree it's a bad design tactic when it comes to cars on most urban streets. Especially since, as you say, "Marked lanes wouldn't stop people from walking along the bike lane." I agree that better signage would likely reduce conflict, but prioritizing higher speed bikes at the expense of all others seems like it could cause more harm than good.

Wouldn't a few simple sharrow markings be enough? Pedestrians would know to keep an eye out, it would make it a "signed route" for connecting Vermont to 15th, and it would remind bikers that they don't own this stretch of asphalt anymore than cars own other city streets.

by Ted on Apr 22, 2010 12:03 pm • link • report

If my experience in Amsterdam is any guide, marked bike lanes do little to keep tourists from wandering where they shouldn't. Hell, train tracks do little to keep tourists from wandering where they shouldn't.

by jcm on Apr 22, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report

I also have mixed feelings about this. As we've learned, when it comes to traffic safety, close calls don't necessarily mean it's unsafe, and just because the officer can recall a few crashes doesn't mean there are many or that it's dangerous.

I wonder if a bike lane would create an expectation that others stay out of it, encouraging higher speeds, and possibly a legal expectation that a pedestrian is wrong if a cyclist hits him in the lane, and then we end up needed a signalized crosswalk across the bike lane, and start getting into the same dynamic with bikes + peds that we do with cars + bikes.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report

I go on these blocks multiple times a week and have for years. Bike lanes aren't necessary. I think putting stripes down would only make bikers less conscious of pedestrians who are probably even more oblivious here than they are in most places. The better approach is for bikers simply to give plenty of space to pedestrians and keep their eyes open. But that really shouldn't be a problem. There is plenty of space to go around on this stretch.

by Reid on Apr 22, 2010 12:32 pm • link • report

not a chance in hell...

although it would be nice.

by peter on Apr 22, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report

Erik, I can't support this idea. We have a decent shared space here; we shouldn't regulate it more, just make people understand it better.

On the other hand, DDOT should install lanes on the other side of Pennsylvania Ave, to draw shy cyclists through the area.

by Neil Flanagan on Apr 22, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report

The major impediment to bike access in Lafayette Square lies at the northeast and northwest corners of the square. The streets at these points are blocked with retractable bollards that stand very close together. I grit my teeth when I bike between them, but many cyclists have to dismount and walk through.

Perhaps one bollard should be set off by a few more inches.

by Eric F. on Apr 22, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

It would be helpful to have some lines. Bikers feel pretty lost out there and want to be polite, but there are wandering tourists everywhere.

Painting some lines would help organize the space a little. It would say: "Hey tourists, please pay attentions, there's bikers here!". And "Hey bikers, just go here, and you'll lower your chance of hitting a tourist".

Bikers will still swerve around tourist that are not paying attention, and occasionally, there will still be collisions and crashes, but I bet there will be less.

If anyone would feel that lines are too intrusive, then how about painting a lane in some color. No lines, just a painted lane.

And yes, both ends would need an obvious outlet for bikers.

It would be great to see that road used for what it was built: traffic, as opposed to silly security.

by Jasper on Apr 22, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

Even as a biker I can't get behind this. Do what I do when traversing these two blocks - slow down and mind pedestrians. Why should we be able to blast through a pedestrian space at high speeds?

by MLD on Apr 22, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

Meanwhile, cyclists fly through the flat, carless area sometimes at speeds up to 30 mph

Come now. No need for exaggeration. I don't think many folks know what a bicycle going 30 mph looks like. I'd be shocked if I saw someone riding *25* mph through there. It seems improbably this happens with any regularity.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report

a bell works great in situations like this

by bing!bing! on Apr 22, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report

I think this area works fine as it is. A little chaos makes everyone slow down and that's a good thing. My only problem is that, when heading east towards the closed section of Penn, at 17th there is a left turn lane and a right turn lane, but no lane for going straight. It forces cyclists to break the law. I'd like to see that fixed some day.

by David C on Apr 22, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

I haven't been here in years, but it sounds like this space is now heavily used and has a great deal of pedestrian traffic. It is clearly not a roadway.

Why is there an expectation that cyclists should be able to ride through here at the same speed they do on roads? It functions like a big sidewalk, a plaza, or a park. Cyclists should ride the same way they would on a sidewalk or any other unmanaged place with lots of pedestrian traffic -- very slowly. As others have said, adding bike lanes through a generally unmanaged space would probably only increase the likelihood of an accident, as cyclists would be more likely to ride with an expectation of exclusive use of that space.

by Jamie on Apr 22, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

I should add, I'm with Jamie and David C. No reason not to slow down through here--even if you're doing 20, not 30 mph. This is a common space--cyclists should treat it like one.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report

as another biker, I'm not for this for the reasons already mentioned.

However, one good thing about this idea is putting a lane in such a prominent space. I'm for putting bike lanes on Madison and Jefferson in the Mall for the same reason.

by wd on Apr 22, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report

another biker against for all the reasons above. I don't need a race track here...frankly, even with clueless tourists, segues, cops, barriers when dignitaries come through, I ket a kick out of just looking around that space.

What I DO have an issue with is coming out of the ped area to the intersection with 17th and Pennsylvania. Peds walk north south there without any expectation of bikes coming through, even when east-west traffic has a green. But I'm not sure that's really changeable.

by jnb on Apr 22, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report

This makes me think of the Dutch guy who dedid the town the town's lanes without lane markings or signage. Maybe it's not so bad to not have a dedicated lane here. I agree most tourists would be oblivious to it anyways. However, Eric is right to point out the difficulty of riding through the bollards - it's the entrances to the pedestrian zone that need specific bike lane entry points.

by Michael on Apr 22, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report

I bike commute through there maybe once a month. Lanes aren't necessary. What would be nice is a sign or something when one end is blocked off for a high security event. It's a waste of time to enter at 15th, travel westbound, only to find the way blocked off at 17th. Then get yelled at by security. Just put a sign up at 15th that it's closed to bike thru-traffic and I'll go around and not bother anybody.

by crin on Apr 22, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report

I'm glad to see I've generated some vehement discussion (and opposition)! To be honest, I wasn't convinced of their necessity when I started writing this post, and I'm still not. I've wrestled with a number of ways in which a lane could be added -- which I may present in another post -- but none seem to be ideal.

One of the major problems, as Eric F points out, are the security bollards at either end of this stretch, as well as at Madison and Jackson Places at H Street. I suspect this is part of the reason why DDOT's current plans for connecting the 15th Street lane all the way through are still vague. I also failed to mention the fact that DDOT likely has little control over these streets since they became a security zone, thus making any plans or changes all the more difficult.

Whether you the position I proposed in the post, or that of Jamie, which I find perfectly acceptable as well, I think that there has to be a clear decision made. Is this a commuter route, as it is mostly treated now? Or is this a pedestrian zone? One way or another, it needs to be more clearly communicated, either with signs imploring cyclists to ride slowly or even dismount, or alerting pedestrians more actively to the presence of bicycles.

Thanks for all the discussion and glad I could ruffle some feathers.

Also, the 30mph was a typo on my part!

by Erik W on Apr 22, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report

Cyclists are the first to demand street calming and shared spaces to slow down cars. I think it makes perfect sense to design a few blocks where bikes must slow down too. If someone on a bike hits a pedestrian, they should be cited, exactly the same as if a driver hits a pedestrian*. Why do we need so much order, which only brings speed?

*No need for snark, saying "but drivers never get cited!"

by J on Apr 22, 2010 6:18 pm • link • report

I'm not sure whether a marked lane is necessary or not, but German bike lanes sometimes go right down the sidewalk and everyone walks to the side. It depends on how we want the space to function.

by Matthias on Apr 22, 2010 7:35 pm • link • report

i'm down with slowing down everyone where necessary, including bikers, and this seems like a good place for it.

some painted lines with some big '10 MPH' warning signs might work. maybe some kind of road bumps or other traffic calming measures if that doesn't get cyclists to slow down.

and another important aspect to consider is that we need to think about the 'subjective safety' of pedestrians, not just whether or not they'll be injured. the same way cyclists are asking for buffered bike lanes, and cycletracks, and soft-hit posts, and grade separation, and 3-foot passing laws, pedestrians deserve all the same considerations. so, even just cycling past a pedestrian in somewhat close proximity can be very frightening for pedestrians -- it's just like being on a bike and getting buzzed by a car, so we cyclists should not do it, and practically-speaking, that means we need to be greatly restricted/controlled/corralled in these types of situations, the same way cars need to be greatly restricted anytime they're in the vicinity of humans.

by Peter Smith on Apr 23, 2010 2:54 am • link • report

@ J: If someone on a bike hits a pedestrian, they should be cited, exactly the same as if a driver hits a pedestrian*.

The difference is the seriousness of the injury. Being hit by a bike has significantly less impact that being hit by a car. Cars are heavier and can move faster than bikes.

I would also add that the amount of indignant righteousness related to the amount of steel(/carbon fiber) one moves around with. Cars drivers tend to feel that the road is theirs, as opposed to anyone else's. Some bikers do to, but to a lesser extend.

by Jasper on Apr 23, 2010 8:59 am • link • report

"The difference is the seriousness of the injury. Being hit by a bike has significantly less impact that being hit by a car. Cars are heavier and can move faster than bikes."

Nonetheless, it is possible for bikes to kill pedestrians, and it is also possible for cars to hit and not seriously injure pedestrians.

So should we should cite people based only on the seriousness of the injury they caused? Should we not issue any citation at all to anyone, for failure to yield if no harm was done?

Using logic such as this, we should have a sliding scale for offenses based on the POTENTIAL to harm versus actual harm. Should gun crimes with 22 caliber weapons be treated less harshly than 38 caliber weapons? Heavier cars vs. lighter cars vs. motorcyles?

I don't really think that makes a lot of sense.

"amount of indignant righteousness..."

Absolutely and in every way irrelevant.

by Jamie on Apr 23, 2010 9:06 am • link • report

It is also possible for "speed walkers" to kill regular pedestrians. Everything is not the same as everything else. Bottom line is, cyclists should slow down when in crowded pedestrian areas because it's the polite thing to do. Not because cyclists in pedestrian areas are some dangerous threat to other modes.

Cars drivers tend to feel that the road is theirs, as opposed to anyone else's. Some bikers do to, but to a lesser extend.

Just one minor point: I have never met a cyclist who intentionally buzzed a pedestrian because they were a pedestrian. I've seen courier-types buzz pedestrians, but it was because they were treating them as objects, not out of malice. Still asshole behavior, but not malevolent.

by oboe on Apr 23, 2010 9:45 am • link • report

So should we should cite people based only on the seriousness of the injury they caused?

We already do this. If you shoot someone, it becomes a more serious offense if they die than if they live.

Should we not issue any citation at all to anyone, for failure to yield if no harm was done?

Yes, we should. This is why we issue speeding tickets and failure to yield tickets. But in DC the penalty for failure to yield carries a lower penalty for cyclists than drivers, as well they should.

Using logic such as this, we should have a sliding scale for offenses based on the POTENTIAL to harm versus actual harm.

Yes. And so we do. Speeding tickets increase in cost as speed over the limit goes up. Offenses committed by the operator of a car have higher penalties than for those on bikes and for operators of Large trucks more than operators of cars.

On a related note, I seem to recall a study that showed that in cyclist/pedestrian crashes, the cyclist is more likely to suffer injuries or death (when you account for age/health - the cyclists tend to be younger and healthier than the pedestrians). Something to do with getting tangled in the bike and the farther distance to fall. So cyclists are significantly more incentivized to avoid crashes with pedestrians than drivers - or even pedestrians - are.

That doesn

by David C on Apr 23, 2010 10:50 am • link • report

Unless the Secret Service is ok with putting in bike lanes or opening up the space between bollards, it's really pointless for DDOT to make a76ny plans for that area.

by Fritz on Apr 23, 2010 11:18 am • link • report

I've actually found the solution, and I'm hoping to meet with DDOT and the Secret Service about it very soon.

by Erik W on Apr 23, 2010 11:56 am • link • report

That plan discriminates against Razor Scooter riders!

by David Alpert on Apr 23, 2010 12:13 pm • link • report

I ride through this stretch going East-West every day on my commute, have been for almost a year. The bollards on the east/west are good markings for cyclists to slow down, and its rare that I see someone 'speeding' through on a bicycle. Personally, it's a nice respite from the fast pace I need to maintain on Pennsylvania ave on either side. It provides a nice breather, where i can slow down, sit up a bit straighter, and stretch out my back.
Pedestrians are ALWAYS going to be here, as well as protesters, and the invariably travel in all different directions. Cyclists need to slow down a few miles per hour, and enjoy the view and lack of traffic.

As for the North-South bike lane, why not just cut the bike lane over to 15th/Vermont a bit earlier, on L, K, or H?

by Shawn on Apr 26, 2010 12:49 pm • link • report

I've been watching them paint the bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue this week from 15th Street east towards the Capitol. Bike lanes are a great idea and I use them on my commute where I can, but the way they've done this is monumentally stupid. PennAve already has a wide "no man's land" down the middle and they've now added bike lanes on BOTH sides of this no man's land -- in essence eating up two more travel lanes for cars. Ain't no way this is going to work -- PennAve already has traffic o'plenty and now we're taking away two additional lanes of traffic? The back-ups were already underway this afternoon...

by Ralston on May 3, 2010 6:36 pm • link • report

That "no man's land" is 4 feet wide at tops, and it serves as a pedestrian refuge. Also, you're judging the success or failure of this project on how quickly cars can move at rush hour. The District is considering other metrics as well.

by David C on May 3, 2010 9:44 pm • link • report