Exciting stuff. Just needs a personal crossing lane for Jim Webb and it will be good to go.

by aaa on Jun 16, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

What happened to closing up the slip lanes?

by Steve S on Jun 16, 2010 4:03 pm • link • report

Steve S: That is part of the longer-term reconstruction. These changes are more immediate.

by Stephen Miller on Jun 16, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report

I hope that is still the plan for the bigger reconstruction. But this pilot project isn't moving the curb lines at all, so I think they're stuck with what they've got until the bigger reconstruction.

by David Alpert on Jun 16, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report

Too many times I've seen cars stopped at the light on top of a sidewalk, so I wonder if the bike box will have any influence on the drivers with a "me first" attitude. Nevertheless, I hope this works and I'll have to pay a visit once it's open.

by Teyo on Jun 16, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report

I don't have a problem with the contraflow lane on New Hampshire Avenue but the new signals DDOT installed are just awful. The vehicles traveling westbound get a left-turn signal but, just like how drivers regularly attempt to beat a yellow light, many drivers see the signal as an excuse to block eastbound traffic and/or barrel through pedestrians in the crosswalk. Awful.

by Adam Lewis on Jun 16, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report

So this means no right on red? That, and keeping bicycles and cars out of the crosswalks seem to be improvements.

by Steve S on Jun 16, 2010 4:53 pm • link • report

It seems like driver compliance (and cyclist usage) would be greatly increased by painting the lanes green.

by andrew on Jun 16, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

This looks nutty. I'm guessing FWHA's "experimentation process" is similar to Albert Hoffman's?

Seriously- induction loops, contraflow bike lanes that switch sides of NH avenue, hopping between bike boxes... the amount of complexity here seems excessive. I will be astonished if everyone can actually figure out where they're supposed to be, and the electronics all work right, to any kind of efficient and safe end result.

by Jamie on Jun 16, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report

My commute involves a bike loop censor, and it works perfectly every time. I dont see why DC would have a problem with them.

by J on Jun 16, 2010 5:20 pm • link • report

I was about to say - induction loop sensors are extremely common and extremely reliable.

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report

@Jamie, the contraflow lanes both lead away from the intersection. No one would ever need to use both, so the fact that they switch sides is irrelevant, and there would be no hopping between bike boxes. Bikes going NW use the new facilities on the SE of the intersection and ride with the traffic flow on the other side, and vice versa.

The City of Berkeley has bike induction loops along several of their bike boulevards that work really well. A few of them are about 20 feet back from the intersection, so the signal turns green before you even get there, meaning you don't have to stop. Pretty cool.

by michael on Jun 16, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report

Awesome infrastructure, too bad it's two blocks from where is should be at 16th and FL. The real missing piece is a crossing provision like this there and a counterflow on 15th north of U to hook up with Florida/W eastbound and V westbound. If that existed no cyclist would ever have to make a turn at 16th and U and few would pass through it at all. We'd all be in the nice quiet bike lanes on every other street in a 2 block radius (except for FL west of 16th which is plenty wide, and 17th which is so wide and quiet it doesn't need them).

If DDOT wants to put some paint down in this intersection they should do dotted lane guides on the south half of U, the greatest danger to cyclists here is cars headed east on U who don't go into the correct lane on the other side of the intersection because of the misalignment between the curbs east and west of 16th on the south side.

by Duke of AdMo on Jun 16, 2010 6:46 pm • link • report

Duke of AdMo: I'm confused, why don't you think this "should be" here? It's for the diagonal bike traffic on NH Ave, which has bike lanes. Yet you seem to only be considering crosstown traffic. Where do you think cyclists traveling diagonally should ride, if not on NH Ave?

by Scott F on Jun 16, 2010 11:21 pm • link • report

Finally, I can legally ride southbound on New Hampshire Avenue between V and 16th. Downhill too!!! Also coming northbound on New Hampshire to approach 16th street will be really great. These two changes will greatly increase the number of bikes at this intersection.

by jkfloy on Jun 17, 2010 6:47 am • link • report

@jkfloy, These two changes will greatly increase the number of bikes at this intersection.

I've noticed an increasing number of cyclists over the last several years who just 'breeze on through' the intersection of New Hampshire and S Streets while traveling north or south on New Hampshire. Some 4 years ago stop signs were added to New Hampshire at that intersection because the general increase in traffic (car traffic) on New Hampshire over the years meant that it had become unsafe for traffic on S Street to enter that intersection. DDOT did a great job in recognizing this problem and solving it. But like I said, the bike traffic breezing through on New Hampshire does not seem to be respecting these stop signs that are critical for the safety for all. I have no doubt that the cyclists will obey the new bike traffic signals up at New Hampshire and U. But the increased bike traffic those signals will bring to New Hampshire and S will create a real problem there unless the cyclists also start stopping at those stop signs too. Over all, I think this new infrastructure for cyclists is good because with it will come the requirement to act responsibly. I.e., like European cyclists do, our Washington cyclists will need to start obeying the rules of the road. And that includes stopping at ALL stop signs.

by Lance on Jun 17, 2010 8:00 am • link • report

My concern wasn't purely about the induction loops, but I am glad to hear that they have been reliable elsewhere.

But that was just one part of it. This system seems to have a lot of moving parts. Intersections that work well and are safe are simple. If road users face unfamiliar, complex constructs, they can become confused, leading to errors. This seems like it is anything but simple.

@Scott F - what Duke of Admo may be getting at is the necessity of handling this particular intersection.

You make it sound like New Hampshire Avenue at 16th & U is part of some major diagonal route. However, it is not. It ends two block away at the bottom of Malcolm X Park and doesn't pick up again until more than a mile away near the Petworth metro.

So, for a cyclist traveling downtown on New Hampshire Avenue from the U street area, there's little benefit to "picking up" New Hampshire there or one block northeast, rather than a block further southwest.

Given that there's a separated bike lane on 15th, wouldn't a much more sensible, safe route for someone going south be to use 15th Street, then cut back on S Street, and entirely avoid this little mess?

This would only add 1.5 blocks to the trip; avoid a complex interchange; and keep the cyclist on a route with a dedicated bike path.

I am not sure that it makes sense to try to create bike-only infrastructure at every single intersection, when fully-built-out alternatives exist a block away. Bicycles are always free to simply use the same travel lanes as cars, of course.

In this case, we are creating something that seems very complicated in order to let bikes go where cars can't go since NH Avenue is one way. I am dubious that it is going to be a net positive for either bikes or cars.

by Jamie on Jun 17, 2010 8:06 am • link • report

@Jamie

There are bike lanes on V and W. Those two blocks of NH are important because they connect the rest of NH to those bike lanes. The contraflow lane on the south side will allow bikers to continue on NH going north all the way to V or W, and the one on the north side will allow people to come off V or W onto NH and ride on the one-way part of the street.

Seriously, this isn't that complicated, nor is it bike-only infrastructure on "every intersection."

by MLD on Jun 17, 2010 8:21 am • link • report

@ Jamie - 15th street is not an optional way around this intersection. Heading westbound on V street in the bike lane I arrive at 15th street. How do I go south? This is no-mans land because the 15th street bike lane doesn't start until 16th street. 15th street is one way northbound. Are you really suggeting that I ride against traffic with no bike lane? .... Opening up NH to southbound bike traffic is a great joy!!!

by jkfloy on Jun 17, 2010 8:22 am • link • report

We know that a lot of people ride on New Hampshire today, even though it's not legal, because MPD often tickets cyclists there. Responding to this "desire line" and providing a safe and legal way through the area will accommodate a movement we already know has substantial demand.

by David Alpert on Jun 17, 2010 8:26 am • link • report

This improvement will make New Hampshire a de facto bike boulevard. Through traffic is already prohibited for cars, and now bikes can go through. Genius! As always, though, the devil's in the details.

by Jacob on Jun 17, 2010 9:39 am • link • report

@Scott F -- Everybody coming from the north on NH can take the broad, beautiful bike lane on V west over to 17th, which is wide, quiet, and puts them at a much safer intersection on U with no idiots from MD coming down the hill at 45mph and punching it to make the light. 2 blocks south they will find themselves on NH again. A very slight detour, yes, but you'll probably make up the time at the lights and not dealing with people who don't know how to stop at a 4 way at NH and T. I'm not saying the counterflow on NH is a bad idea in and of itself, but routing bikes through this intersection is just dumb. We need counterflow on 15th north of U worse than we need a bunch of stupid green paint and induction loops.

Trust me on this, I've ridden through this intersection every day for 3 years.

by Duke of AdMo on Jun 17, 2010 9:51 am • link • report

@Jamie, it's the most direct route from upper Georgia Ave to Georgetown(, Key Bridge, Virginia, etc.): 11th->Florida->NH Ave. About a mile of NH Ave is used, without any nearby streets going in the same diagonal direction. I think it's a major route.

by Scott F on Jun 17, 2010 10:10 am • link • report

I realize it's the most direct route. But taking another route (e.g. the one Duke describes above) doesn't change things much. From a time perspective, given the mess involved in crossing 15th, then 16th, would it really take longer (assuming you don't run red lights)? If you're coming down 11th why don't you just stay on it until S street? Cars have to do this.

My problem with the principle of this is that it adds a lot of complexity to an already messed-up intersection. I really doubt it's going to be safer, especially when you consider the typical cyclist's lack of interest in following signals.

by Jamie on Jun 17, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

Sounds like maybe the guys who designed the new traffic flow at New York and Florida Avenues might be working on the 16th and U plan. Rather complicated and surely does not accomodate the me first attitude. The recently installed leading green arrow on westbound U street allowing turns onto southbound 16th and New Hampshire was well intended but I think it has made a bad situation worse. You have pedestrians not waiting for the WALK sign and you have cars (mostly taxis) trying to make the turn after the green arrow has expired, leading to some dangerous encounters. Throwing bikes and lights into the mix is only going to make it worse.

by 16th and U user on Jun 17, 2010 10:27 pm • link • report