Fantastic! It feels great to ride it. This design matches the preferred route of cyclists. The flexposts installed at SW leg of U/NH/16th intersection at the pork chop island also help make the crossing a little safer for pedestrians. This is a major conflict point between peds & vehicles diving into southbound NH off 16th. Bike boxes are great for sorting peds, bikes & cars. Thanks DDOT!

by ccort on Aug 11, 2010 7:57 am • link • report

How do folks feel about being on that side of the parked cars? Any concern about cars weaving across, using the bike lane as a staging area to parallel park?

by Bossi on Aug 11, 2010 8:13 am • link • report

@bossi, or even just pulling out into traffic across the lanes?

Drivers are used to looking back behind them when pulling out from parallel spaces. You can put up as many signs as you like, but I wouldn't trust riding any faster than walking pace on such a contraflow lane. I'd be worried about getting doored or front-ended.

See the video "one got fat" for an example of why not to ride the wrong way near parallel parked cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg

(Yes, it's silly but the lessons are real).

by Michael Perkins on Aug 11, 2010 8:19 am • link • report

Relating this to the bike lanes on 1st Ave N in downtown Minneapolis, MN, it was decided to put the bike lanes curbside, between the curb and the parking lane, since the chances of a pedestrian door being opened were a lot less than the drivers side door being opened.

That said, I'd have concerns about a contraflow bike lane between the parking lane and the driving lane as was done here on New Hampshire. IMO, the contraflow bike lane should have been curbside, and there appears to be enough width to do so and have a full-width bike lane so as to implement bollards or a curb or something to separate the bike lane and parking lane (with enough width to accommodate plowing of the bike lane).

by Froggie on Aug 11, 2010 8:30 am • link • report

Bossi,

Funny you mentioned that. When I was filming the section between V and U Street (not in this video), one driver did just that--- she pulled into the bike lane and then backed into an angled parking space!

Nobody was in danger, but I did chuckle a bit at what must have been her confusion.

by Eric Fidler on Aug 11, 2010 8:45 am • link • report

Agreed, it is goofy to not have the bike lane on the curbside. It is confusing for cars parking, confusing to bikers going in both directions and may not be all that safe for cars exiting their parking spots. As froggie says, there is clearly more than enough space for a curbside lane.

by neb on Aug 11, 2010 9:08 am • link • report

This is fantastic. Now who do I talk to to get rid of the left turn arrow on U ST westbound (for cars)? It last about four seconds and is only long enough to get cars to speed into the intersection to catch the light and right into the eastbound pedestrians who have started to cross on their cross signal.

by DAJ on Aug 11, 2010 9:19 am • link • report

@Michael, Good video (One Got Fat) ... One recurring theme throughout is 'Riders need to follow the same rules as drivers' ... Good lesson ... But one not learned by even DDOT ... Mixing different directions of traffic in the same lane?! What were they thinking?! ... Remember, David has told us that that lane is supposed to be used like a regular lane by car traffic when turning, parking, dropping off passengers, etc. I.e., it's one way for one mode of traffic and 'the other way' for another mode of traffic ... But it's the same lane! Just incredible ... Is anyone minding the shop at DDOT?

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 9:28 am • link • report

@DAJ Are you saying cars are still turning left after the green arrow is gone and the walk light comes on?

by Froggie on Aug 11, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

@Froggie, Cars are still turning left after the walk light comes on. They are turning left through a regular green light. The cycle, for U St westbound is: green light (strait) and green arrow; yellow arrow and green light; green light. The left turn arrow lasts only for a few seconds, exactly long enough to get two cars, if stopped at the red light, through the intersection, before the arrow goes away and the crosswalk comes on. The real concern is the cars coming westbound after the light has turned green who try to speed through a yellow arrow and end up speeding right into oncoming pedestrian traffic who has either started to inch out or have gotten the green crosswalk and started to legally cross. I see it almost every day. It is a serious problem that can be fixed by removing the turn signal that doesn't help move that many cars anyway.

by DAJ on Aug 11, 2010 10:02 am • link • report

Priceless video, showing a all three "bystander" cyclists blowing the red light right before the "demo rider" approaches and waits for it.

Most cyclists don't obey the far simpler signals at most intersections. Does anyone really expect that most people will either understand or follow either the proscribed route, or the signals, to traverse these two intersections?

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 10:06 am • link • report

Admittedly, I don't know much at all about bike lanes and this is the first time I've ever seen or heard of a bike box or traffic lights just for bike (and I think it's great, as I live close to that intersection and know what a clusterfck it can be), but isn't it counterintuitve to have the bike lanes headed north below U and south above? It seems like they just dump cyclists onto U.

by Mazzie on Aug 11, 2010 10:16 am • link • report

@Froggie (your first post in this thread)-

I'm not familiar with Minneapolis, but it sounds like those aren't contraflow... in which case yeah, it's good twice over since you're not mixing with parking cars *and* you're on the passenger side. Here, however, you're currently on passenger side... so the cost of shifting the lanes to the curb would be that you'd conflict with more frequent drivers' side doors.

I'm not familiar with the road's cross-section down to the foot, so I'm not sure if there's room or not to create a buffer from the doors; but perhaps adding tubular markers a la 15th St might do the job by increasing motorist awareness as they open their doors.

I can say that if I were parking here, I'd absolutely occupy the bike lane. I mean no ill intent toward bikers, but parallel parking is a ritualised movement among every urban driver... and performing that movement with several feet of offset is something your casual visitor is *highly* unlikely to be able to do. Residents might get the hang of it... but this area sees a pretty healthy mix of residents & tourists; it'll be a frequent issue.

Furthermore, being a traffic engineer, I cringe to see a double-solid line, indicating that crossing over it is prohibited. It basically insinuates that a car can't access the parking spaces & is parking facing the wrong way on what could be legally argued to now be a two-way roadway. But I'll concede that this highly technical nitpicking is unlikely to be enforced... it's just a pet peeve of mine :P

by Bossi on Aug 11, 2010 10:21 am • link • report

Also, I noticed the signs alerting motorists to stay behind the bike box. They're comically bad:

http://twitpic.com/2dolwd

If you're going to make a tiny sign with lots of detail, why use some sort of slogan? "THE BOX GET BEHIND IT"? Why not "STAY BEHIND THE BOX"? I just think they're so poorly designed overall that motorists won't notice (or have time to study) them.

by Mazzie on Aug 11, 2010 10:21 am • link • report

@Mazzie... that sign is something else. Obviously DDOT thought this video was meant to be taken seriously.

I guess we can expect that from now on, 1/5 of the surface area of street signs will be a stylized "DDOT" advertisement? How does that border help anyone? If I saw that sign while driving, I probably wouldn't register it at all. My brain would automatically categorize it as "spam" assuming it was a business improvement district advertisement or something.

What ever happened to clean, large lettering that just said what you were supposed to do?

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 10:26 am • link • report

@Jamie, Oh wow ... I hadn't noticed that the first round through. But yes, you actually see them stopping all the traffic as they careen across toward the red light! Just amazing ... I really liked that video that Michael posted. It has a lot of valuable lessons in it. Too bad there isn't a way to educated riders about their responsibilites on the road like their is for drivers. Maybe something like 'cyclists' riding licenses' would work?

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 10:26 am • link • report

@Lance, it's irrelevant that they didn't nearly cause an accident. Cars could run red lights 99.9% of the time with just as much (or little) interference.

The point is that cyclists are used to going wherever they want as long as they way is basically clear. So, then, what's the point of creating a relatively complex construct that is very unlikely to be followed by anyone? Before, as now, bikes will just go when there aren't cars coming.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 10:29 am • link • report

@Lance

Yes, witness the three cyclists "careen" from a complete stop! The cross traffic is stopped because the light is red in that direction.

Also I love the implications from all sides that all cyclists AND drivers are morons and won't be able to figure out what is really a pretty simple traffic pattern.

by MLD on Aug 11, 2010 10:34 am • link • report

@MLD, all traffic controls exist at all because of the assumption that people are morons.

We don't design traffic constructs with the idea that everyone does the smart, safe, sensible thing all the time. Everyone isn't you. We design them for the least common denominator.

Yes, you and I can figure out what we're supposed to do while watching an instructional video. Given that many people get anxious a typical traffic circle, it's absurd to argue that this is "simple."

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 10:39 am • link • report

@Jamie, That's a good point. On the one hand I'm sympathetic to riders because when you're on a bike there's something about being a head higher than most traffic ... and on a vehicle where it's hard to regain speed and momentum ... that just urgers you on to just go whenever the coast is clear. BUT, if bikers want to mix with motorists then then MUST follow the same rules ... even if it's not 'natural' for them. Otherwise you have complete mayhem with one set of road users using one set of rules and another set a different set of rules. The alternative is of course to build separated roadways for cyclists. I'd even go so far as saying there's no reason when some real cycle tracks going north/south and east/west couldn't be built even using existing roadways. You wouldn't need many ... A cyclist can always turn in to a 'pedestrian pushing a bike' (like you see in Europe whenever there are lots of pedestrians present), so you wouldn't need more than a couple east/wests bike roads and a couple north/south bike roads in the center part of the city. And the road could be kept open for 'residents' car traffic/parking by reconfiguring the roads so that cars couldn't use them to go more than one block on them ... There are lots of options out there. I just don't see expecting 2 sets of rules apply to the same space working. And that's what they're doing now.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

@Jamie (your 10:26 post)-

I think they do have large signs, too, though I agree that I'm not a fan of the signs that Mazzie linked to. Perhaps they'll come down after everyone's gotten a better feel for what bike boxes are & what's expected of everyone when near them.

by Bossi on Aug 11, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

Bossi: correct, the 1st Ave N lanes in Minneapolis are not contraflow...I just brought them up here because there are some similarities between the two.

Regarding a curbside lane here, if DDOT goes with a full-width curbside bike lane (and there looks to be enough room to do so), you're not only providing enough room to reduce "dooring" potential, but with some sort of physical barrier between the lanes (curb or bollard), you're virtually eliminating bike-vehicle conflicts. That's a net-win in my book.

by Froggie on Aug 11, 2010 10:49 am • link • report

God the comments on this blog are negative and pretty uneducated for urbanists(I am from NYC). Can someone start a Lance and Jamie forum so they can suck up to each other and bash anything progressive in private? Also, www.TBD.com is pretty exciting, and productive. People should check it out.

by NotJamie on Aug 11, 2010 11:36 am • link • report

@NotJamie - you mean kinda the opposite of GGW, where any comment that is not "it's for cyclists so it's awesome," gets labelled a troll without any substantive response?

Seriously, though, I do not wish to label most readers/commenters that way because there are many thoughtful dialogs as well. But it's too bad there are always people like you, who think that everything DDOT does is amazing and any criticism must be squelched. If you blindly accept whatever you get, then that's what you will get: whatever. I want things to be good, not just different, and see little value in just saying "yay!" every time DDOT paints a new maze without any analysis.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 11:43 am • link • report

Right, but you rarely have any data or information to back up your assertions Jamie, so they are just as worthless as your supposed criticisms. I and others are just tired of the endless whining, and predictable bashing when anyone at DDOT, or other agencies move the ball forward. A prejudged bias on one side is just as bad as a prejudged bias on the other. In fact, the same.

by NotJamie on Aug 11, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report

I provide data in my comments far more often than most, and whenever it is available in any reasonable way. Since I post under the same name every time I comment, unlike you, you can easily verify that.

Obviously, there is no data about this intersection configuration since it's new.

Anyway, you are clearly not interested in productive discourse, or hearing anything other than blind praise for DDOT. So I'll let you have the last word if you choose, carry on.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 12:25 pm • link • report

I think they should be awarded a tentative thumbs up just for trying. With so many crappy and dangerous facilities for cyclists all over the world it's nice to see traffic planners making an effort.

by mick allan on Aug 11, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report

@mick allan, I think their hearts are in the right place. But as I've said before, my concerns with this project (but really, the big picture) is that there is a "leap before you look" mentality.

In isolation, I would not worry too much about any one of the things we've seen. But in just the last year or two, we've had:

1) New contraflow bike lane on 15th Street
2) This (including new bike boxes, new pressure-sensitive actuation, and new signals)
3) Much new signage that does not conform to any existing conventions or styles for design
4) Barnes dance intersection
5) Penn ave bike lanes (another new kind of bike traffic convention)
6) New, unusual traffic structure for Florida Ave & NY Ave
7) Bus/bike lane on 9th Street
8) Many new in-street bike lanes throughout the city
9) Total chaos on parking meters in the city- the times have changed so the signs & meters say two different things; there are multiple different systems in place in different parts of the city; there are two different call-to-pay pilots going on with two completely different vendors.
10) Lots and lots of new, unfamiliar, inconsistent signage related to these things.
11) Huge numbers of new speed humps with a wide array of configurations, designs, and signage.

I am probably forgetting about a lot of other things, too.

Every single one of these is an unfamiliar traffic construct, and some of them are relatively or entirely untested constructs.

The point is, even small changes in traffic patterns throw people for a loop. We have introduced a very large number of significant changes in a very small period of time. That alone seems unwise, and further, there seems to be little in the way of consistency and planning for how this is going to evolve.

If we want to do pilot tests, then great. But let's not do 10 at once so you don't know which way is up when you're trying to get around town. Or how about we do some analysis on, say, the 15th Street contraflow lane before we start doing a bunch of other things?

I'm all for moving forward, but there is little evidence that all these random projects are being implemented with any kind of big-picture plan in mind, and I've seen nothing in the way of analysis following any of them.

15th Street has been open nine months now. Is anyone doing any bike/auto traffic analysis? Is any planned? Why not? I've heard nothing.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

@Jamie, You forgot to mention the 'parking pilot' that was put on the block of New Hampshire in question just south of U. I think that 'parking pilot' with new types of signs and new parking rules got put up in something like 2005 or 2006 ... and then promptly forgotten about. It's still there ... or at least was there yesterday. I wonder if some DDOT official happened to notice it this morning when they installed the new counterflow lanes and thought 'Jeez, we really should either conclude that parking pilot ... or just take the signs down'.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report

@Jamie,

I recently returned to LA from DC and all of us out here wish that LADOT would do even a quarter of what DDOT has attempted. For some perspective, it's taken us three years to conduct a "pilot" sharrows program in which they somehow are testing what is already a standard road marking in the CAMUTCD.

I'm all for being cautious, but at some point you just have to try things and see how they work.

by Eric B on Aug 11, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

Right.. though technically I can't blame the current DDOT for that, that's more like the Route 29 sign at Dupont Circle.

That does remind me of a lot of other ongoing DDOT nonsense though:

1) The visitor parking permits that you can get in some (but not all) wards. I believe that is a pilot program that's now been going on since the Forumla 1 race at RFK stadium, was expanded to Ward 4, then the baseball stadium area, I think, and just now to Ward 1. Can't you just make this universal?

2) The rule about how close to a corner you can park. Is it 35 feet? Or 25 feet? Or what the sign says? It depends where you are, and legally the sign is not the arbiter of right and wrong. But it doesn't matter anyway because you'll probably get a ticket unless you're inside the sign.

3) The inability to get a parking sticker if you're on an unzoned street. But this has been the case for decades, not the current administration's fault

4) The broken parking meters everywhere, and the five minute (not joking) recording you must listen to before even being put on hold when you call it in. Which you must do if you plan to contest the ticket you will surely get. Please, can we have a text-message autoresponder implemented on this number?

But anyway these things are more ongoing situations that could be fixed incredibly easily, versus new, inconsistent, contradictary "pilot programs" that will probably never have an analysis or official adoption phase.

There are no standards at DDOT. Everything gets done on an ad-hoc basis. Why do we have to accept "status quo" or "fly by the seat of our pants" as the only two options?

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

"I'm all for being cautious, but at some point you just have to try things and see how they work."

I totally agree. But I'm seeing a lot of "trying" and not much "seeing how they worked out."

Can anyone refer me to any analysis of any DDOT pilot program, and a conclusion about it's effectiveness, and a decision to adopt or reject said plan? How about a document explaining the plans for any given pilot? How about a comprehensive list of our pilot programs, their timings, and schedules for analysis?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Do we have a plan? Really? It seems like our plan is just to keep doing stuff, generally react to the loudest complaints, as opposed to objective analysis.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report

Oh no! Change! And not at the speed of slug! Jamie is a bureaucrat (and probably a fired ddot employee). Can we rename this Greater Greater Jamie? This is the kind of person that would be complaining if DDOT was not doing all of this great work. He just likes to complain!

by NotJamie on Aug 11, 2010 2:17 pm • link • report

Can someone explain what is the problem with bicyclists just handling this intersection using normal vehicle rules? What problem is this expensive and counter-intuitive facility attempting to solve?

by John Brooking on Aug 11, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

Isn't it funny that none of the posts here which called attention to the bikes that stopped and then proceeded across a clear road (against the traffic light), noticed the taxi that clearly pulls in to the bike box during the same light cycle?

Are Lance and Jamie really advocates of cyclists filtering up to lights (as is legal), and then waiting for the light to cycle green before proceeding, even if the roadway is clear? This will inconvenience countless car drivers, who must then wait for the grouped cyclists to proceed and file down to the bike lane (if present), or to a single line, before they can pull around them. If a little sanity and common sense is employed, most car drivers agree that allowing the cyclists through the light early is in their own best interest as well.

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report

@John Brooking, the intended purpose is to allow bicycle traffic use the two block of New Hampshire Avenue between 15th & V, and NH and T, in both directions. It is one-way for cars.

Basically, everyone did it anyway, so this was created to legalize an common illegal cycling traffic pattern. The legal alternative for cyclists traveling on that route would have been going the same way as cars, that is, one block on V street then one block on 16th Street southbound, or T to 16th northbound. Or ride on the sidewalk which is legal anyway.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 2:54 pm • link • report

@CJ, I'm not arguing on the basis of what is better or worse. The exact same argument could be used to justify almost any illegal activity that is "victimless."

Your exact argument could apply to anyone running a red light, in any vehicle, or in almost any other traffic situation. I could argue that my illegal activity helps others because I'm getting out of your way. Speeding. Running a red light. Illegal right turn on red. Hey, I'm not hurting anyone, and you don't have to wait for me!

If nobody was obstructing me when I made my illegal maneuver in a car, who's harmed?

There is a point to traffic laws beyond the fact that the vast majority of the time, breaking them doesn't hurt anyone. I surely hope everyone understands that and believes it.

When driving, I would gladly wait for cyclists to proceed in an orderly fashion if that is the price for the order that comes when most people choose to obey the laws, and the confidence in having people actually be where they're supposed to be most of the time.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 3:02 pm • link • report

@ John Brookings

I can explain it. I live on T street, between 16 and 15, one block from this intersection. I commute home on my bike up New Hampshire Ave from DuPont Circle. NH Ave has a great bike lane that is used extensively, but it ends abruptly at the intersection of NH and T, where I turn to go home. For cyclists proceeding up NH Ave, they must turn on T, then make a left on 16th, which has no bike lane and is a fast moving North South car corridor. Then they have to proceed through 16th and U, to, I believe, florida ave, which can get them west again back on to NH Ave. There are no alternatives to this work around.

NH Ave is one way, away from U street on the blocks north and south of 16th and U. This is to minimize the entrance of car traffic at this busy intersection. The lack of a bike lane through this area burdens cyclists and car drivers, because it routes cyclists on to the busiest car lanes, slowing traffic needlessly. This solution will have the net effect of speeding car trafic along 16th street by removing cyclists and routing them on to underused segments of NH Ave..

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report

For those unfamiliar with this intersection, the changes happened because NH is one way headed south below U street. And one way north above of U street, meaning you couldn't cycle straight through on New Hampshire on two segment that have relatively light (and slow) traffic.

Bikers coming up NH between T and U had to bike north against the grain, and the bigger issue to me was bikers coming south on NH against the grain (with little traffic) and getting periodic tickets, though it was preferred by many cyclists over braving 16th. If one was trying to get from Florida/15th to New Hampshire south, it was the shortest and safest route, though illegal. This change happened to make cyclists safe and legal on the most direct route.

I think there's clearly some room for tweaks, and for starters, putting in the green bike boxes that were part of the original plan would be a good idea.

by Steve on Aug 11, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report

@ Jamie. I was first and foremost calling attention to the seeming bias in your powers of observation.

As for cyclists proceeding through red lights on clear streets, no, It is not like any of the other examples you provide. No, I wont elaborate on the clear and easily defined difference. You already know them, and out of spite and small mindedness, you choose to ignore them. That's OK, the rest of the city will continue to evolve and change around you.

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 3:18 pm • link • report

CJ, if you want to debate something on the merits of the discussion, I will engage. But there seems to be an increasing desire to dismiss arguments to the contrary of one's position here without any actual argument.

So, because I think that everyone has an equal responsibility to obey the law, I'm "small minded" and "spiteful?" I am "biased" because I believe that safety comes from everyone (not just cars) acting in a predictable and legal fashion? What exactly is the source of my bias? I walk and bike far more often than I drive. I live in Columbia Heights, probably the most walkable part of the entire city.

Stop being such a stereotype of a GGW "if you disagree with me you're an idiot" commenter. See my comment to "NotJamie" before.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

@ Steve. Yes to all that. I would add that 16th street is two lane running south in the morning and two lane running north in the evening. During rush hour, cyclists commuting, if routed onto 16th street, are forced to take up a car lane. There is no parking lane, and so, no door gutter. Cars are forced to wait on bike traffic in most places. The most affected groups, then, are car drivers and bus riders. Removing cyclist traffic from 16th street is a huge benefit to both of these groups.

It's always amazing to me that anti-cyclist posters are willing to promote policy that impacts them negatively, in order to screw over cyclists.

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

"It's always amazing to me that anti-cyclist posters are willing to promote policy that impacts them negatively, in order to screw over cyclists."

Perhaps you should open your mind to the idea that because someone doesn't agree with a particular traffic construct, that they aren't anti-cyclist.

I don't think this construct will improve the safety for cyclists because it is unnecessarily complex. I would prefer a construct that is easier for both drivers and cyclists to understand. I am not saying "we should do nothing," I'm saying we should act with more forethought, and whether or not we do that, we should analyzed the consequences of our new constructs, which we do not do as far as I can tell.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report

@ Jamie. Your posts deserve a high degree of scorn because they are biased and inflamatory.

Your first contribution to this discussion, "Priceless video, showing a all three "bystander" cyclists blowing the red light right before the "demo rider" approaches and waits for it.
Most cyclists don't obey the far simpler signals at most intersections. "

I have noted that you were unwilling or unable to observe the car driver who broke the law in the same video. Why did you not? If the cyclists are evidence that "most cyclists don't obey {snip}" then why is the car driver not evidence of the same? The answer is simple. You are biased. Amazingly so.

I dismissed your argument on those grounds.

Do you have another argument that does not begin with an ad hominem attack on all cyclists?

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report

@ Jamie. If that is what you'd started out saying, I'd be inclined to listen. It's not though. See above for my quote of your first contribution to this thread.

If you want to be taken seriously by cyclists, you'll need a better come-on line.

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report

"If you want to be taken seriously by cyclists, you'll need a better come-on line."

See, here's the difference between you and me. You think of yourself as a cyclist, and your world view is a result of that self-identification.

I think of myself as a road user, not a driver, cyclist or pedestrian.

As far as the car breaking a law, are you talking about the cab crossing the stop line by a foot? OK, fair enough. I also failed to point out the jaywalkers, and the car who was an inch into the dotted yellow line in the opening shot.

However this isn't bias, it's relevance. The point was that in an actual instructional video showing us how cyclists should behave at this intersection, all cyclists visible were not doing what they are supposed to. It's ironic. I would never deny that cars break laws all the time, as do muggers, cops, and bankers. It just wasn't relevant to the point of my observation: that this construct will likely not change a typical cyclist's behavior at this intersection.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

@CJ ... I'm confused as to why you think the Taxi driver disobeyed a traffic law. I just reviewed the tape and he stops at the solid stripe ... which is exactly where drivers are supposed to stop. Now, I will grant you that the solid stripe is off kilter ... having been re-drawn at an angle to apparently accommodate the cyclists riding in the cross walk (which incidentally seems like should be illegal ...) ... And as a result of it being at an angle, a very small part of his car sticks out ahead of the stop line. But that I would say just reflects badly on DDOT for putting the stop line at an angle as it has ...

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 3:54 pm • link • report

@Lance,

if bikers want to mix with motorists then then MUST follow the same rules ... even if it's not 'natural' for them. Otherwise you have complete mayhem with one set of road users using one set of rules and another set a different set of rules.

Nah, it works out okay. I do it all the time, been doing it for more than a decade in DC, and have never had a problem.

Same goes for pedestrians: folks jaywalk when there's no traffic. Mostly this is because the pedestrian walk signals in this city are calibrated for the maximum convenience of drivers, but at the end of the day, you jaywalk when there are no cars coming.

Proclamations such as, "pedestrians/cyclists can never share space with cars until they obey all the laws" sound grand, but in the end are rendered meaningless by the facts on the ground. Sure they can. They do.

As DDOT slowly gets scofflaw auto drivers under control, things will continue to get safer for everyone who uses our public spaces.

by oboe on Aug 11, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report

@oboe, why do you think ped xing signals are calibrated for "driver convenience?" In the overwhelming majority of cases, they exactly mirror the timing of the light signals for cars, and as such favor pedestrians since cars must yield when turning. In a car or on foot, you will on average wait at a light-controlled intersection for about the same time, but probably marginally longer if you're in a car and turning since you may have to wait to turn too.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that in heavily pedestrian-trafficked areas, they favor pedestrians significantly because of this. Perfect example is 18th and Columbia. It is very difficult for cars to turn right from Columbia onto Calvert Street since the intersection redesign, because there is no "car only" turn cycle (green arrow). It's a very busy crossing, and cars have little choice but to turn right on red (illegally) or push through gaps in pedestrians. Neither is particularly safe, but it would be impossible for cars to turn much of the time otherwise.

But this is an example of how an intersection that favors pedestrians, practically speaking, benefits nobody. A right turn arrow there for even ten seconds per cycle would make things better for everyone. It's not about favoring - favoring doesn't really work. You need to balance the needs of all kinds of traffic.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report

@ Jamie and Lance. Thank you for proving my point.

Jamie, setting up cyclists as unique scofflaws based on film evidence is relevant. It's relevant because the same film contains evidence of car and pedestrian scofflaws. Its relevance is that it proves that you are biased. And your original "observation" was that "most cyclists dont obey {snip}" That's a far cry from where you ended up.

And Lance, stop trolling. Is the car on U street at 1:10 also legal? All four tires in the crosswalk. Maybe DDOT needs to straighten out those lines too?

by CJ on Aug 11, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

@Jamie, as you say, they exactly mirror the timing of the light signals for cars. In almost every case this is optimized for motor vehicle traffic, and ped xing signals are an afterthought.

Every DC resident who walks for any significant percentage of the time knows intersections where, on crossing a major intersection or various traffic circles, there's less than half the time necessary to actually cross the street on foot. Usually the implied solution is to cross the street in stages--wait a minute or two for the flow of drivers to cease, scurry across to the median, then wait another minute or two for the flow of drivers to cease.

Contrasted with the case you're talking about, I've never had problems taking a right turn at 18th and Columbia, and there's no reason to intimidate pedestrians, either. The situation you've described simply means that only one or two cars can take a right turn per light cycle. In a city where he drivers are used to being coddled in every scenario, I can understand how that might be frustrating, but sometimes life's like that.

Anyway, the issue of improperly calibrated "pedestrian walk signals" comes up all the time on GGW. When it does, we're usually treated to some hilarious comment from one of the resident "Driver Humans" making fun of the elderly or children for not stepping lively enough.

Good times.

by oboe on Aug 11, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

I live right on this corner. We park our car in the back-in spaces on NH Ave all the time, and some times on the south NH side as well, where there is the concern with cyclists being doored or hit by cars pulling out. This is a real concern, but if it is any consolation, most people who park there live there, and so park there all the time, and will quickly become accustomed to looking.

Also, right now, cyclist go the wrong way on NH Ave all the time (northbound south of U St and southbound north of U St - if you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go to the intersection) so I'm already accustomed to looking the wrong way for a bicycle.

The right turn arrow on U St was just installed, so I doubt it's coming out any time soon. It's not really that bad for peds xing in my experience.

The worst is the ped xing across that little part of NH Ave on the SW corner to get from 16th to U St. Cars coming down 16th with the green light turning onto NH think they have the right-of-way over peds. They don't. It's very dangerous. There used to be a big yellow ped xing sign with an arrow facing the traffic on 16th. It fell down. But DDOT put it back up, facing the Eastbound U Street traffic. Totally useless - that crossing has a signal! Again, you got to see it to understand it. Not that the sign helped very much.

by kwest on Aug 11, 2010 4:32 pm • link • report

@oboe, it's not about coddling drivers. There are more than one to two cars per light cycle that want to turn right. Further, if cars never turned illegally, there could easily be zero cars per cycle that were able to turn.

Your attitude of "just deal with it" is counterproductive. Cars are not going away, and creating scenarios like that one that inevitably result in potentially hazardous conflicts is needless. Who would lose if there was a ten second turn cycle? It would prevent drivers from being frustrated at the inability to turn. Why actually create situations that you know will limit traffic flow and cause frustration, when the alternative is so easy and really has no downsides?

As far as walk signals that are too short, well, I'm certainly not in favor of those. I am sure there are some. But most streets in DC are one lane in each direction and it's hard to imagine a situation where the signal was so short someone couldn't get across 30 feet in time. I've never seen any such problems in my neighborhood. The major issue now is near DCUSA, where the signals are all jacked up (e.g. there are many situations where there's a "don't walk" signal despite no traffic allowed) but I'm hoping that will be sorted out as the construction is finished.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 4:36 pm • link • report

@CJ,

Don't pick on Lance. He's got a particular blind spot on these issues. We once had an argument where he was calling out cyclists for their uniquely scofflawish behavior. I pointed out that, in my experience, virtually every single car slowly rolls through a stop sign, and that--unless obstructed by congestion--compliance with speed limit laws is essentially nil among auto drivers.

As far as I can tell, his position was that those things weren't really illegal since all drivers engage in them, or something to that effect. It was all very confusing.

by oboe on Aug 11, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report

@CJ, are you arguing that my original statement that "most cyclists don't obey the far simpler signals at most intersections" was incorrect? Seriously?

Don't patronize me by arguing that cyclist scofflaws are anything other than the rule. But I'll be sure to take some video and keep a count of the number who do and do not run the lights on my way home today, if you like. I'm guessing 80-90% run the lights, based on my usual observations. Traffic permitting, of course.

However, I certainly didn't say cyclists are "unique" scofflaws. My point was that because they don't obey traffic signals at typical, easily understood intersections, I did not anticipate that this more complex construct would be obeyed either, and therefore I do not believe it will improve safety at this intersection.

by Jamie on Aug 11, 2010 4:44 pm • link • report

Hahahaha...PRICELESS. Video taken by a cyclist to show the proper usage, and it catches three bikers, the only other ones around doing, all blowing through the light.

Predictably ridiculous. I am a little surprised the poster of said video actually posted the video knowing what it showed.

by nookie on Aug 11, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report

@nookie ... I'm not surprised. If you read the comments above, you'll see many of them rationalize breaking the law. They even pretend that the very low percentage of drivers who occasionally run a stop sign or go above the speed limit represent the average driver. Which any sane person knows to be far from the truth. And you won't convince them otherwise because deep down inside they have to know they're wrong.

I'm actually glad to see more bike infrastructure coming 'cause it's going to force a 'day of reckoning'. By and large drivers, the police, and others have been giving a pass to our 'more than significant' percentage of bikers in this town who think they're above the law. Not all of course, but a far larger percentage than one finds in cities where you have a mature cycling system in place. It was easy for these 'bad apples' to get away with their bad ways when they were few as their actions didn't affect many people. But as the volume of bikers grows with the volume of infrastructure, the general public (and the police) will be less inclined to just let it pass. I bet we'll even have cyclists (the good ones) out there demanding enforcement of the laws. You can't have a working transportation system ... any transporatation system - cars and/or bikes ... if you don't have users willing to follow the rules. It just won't work.

I'm looking forward to the day we have a real bicycle infrasture in place ... and real enforcement of the laws in respect to cyclists. With rights come responsibilities.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report

closing parens.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 5:59 pm • link • report

Typically clueless stay at home commentators.

The three cyclists that are breaking the law actually were taking advantage of the fact that all traffic is stopped during the bike movement. Getting a head start for those folks is brilliant and gets them out of the way of the soon to be rapidly accelerating motorists. I am sure DDOT will be adjusting the timing to give pedestrians and bikes leading interval soon, maybe they haven't gotten to it yet.

If you ever left your computers to go outside to see the projects you bash incessantly you might actually see how many of your comments are off base and ridiculous.

by Joe on Aug 11, 2010 5:59 pm • link • report

@Lance,

They even pretend that the very low percentage of drivers who occasionally run a stop sign or go above the speed limit represent the average driver.

Uh-oh. Here we go again.

*Every* driver goes above the speed limit most of the time--I'd even say they do this at all times, unless congestion forces them to slow down. Anyone who drives a car, and is honest with themselves, knows this. That ain't hyperbole, it's just the facts.

Secondly, every driver slow-rolls stop signs. Unless there's another car that has ROW, cars simply do not stop at stop signs. They slow down to a greater or lesser degree, and roll through (at about the same speed as most bicycles). Again, anyone with eyes can see this. It's just such a universal phenomenon that, for some, it doesn't even register.

Last time we hashed this out, you defined "stopping" at stop sign as "slowing down to a minimal speed". Not your finest hour.

by oboe on Aug 11, 2010 6:22 pm • link • report

It's the ROW problem you just don't seem to get. Too many cyclists take the ROW when it isn't theirs to take. You've hit the nail on the head. As you acknowledged, drivers give ROW ... and many cyclists in this town do not.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 6:38 pm • link • report

just like the drivers regularly grant themselves a "leading car interval" by blocking crosswalks and turning right on red when it is prohibited as exhibited in the video.

This argument has no end...

by Joe on Aug 11, 2010 7:29 pm • link • report

Thank God for oboe, he's the Maddow to balance out the O'Reilly's that post here. Plus, funny as hell, and is the only one that gets smoke to pour out of Lance and Jamie's ears. I am picturing them in their underwear (together maybe) in front of their computers fuming like Sean Hannity after a clip of Colbert lampooning them.

by bananas on Aug 11, 2010 7:30 pm • link • report

ROW is the only law that matters to Lance. 25 over the speed limit on Rock Creek Parkway is not bad because he does it and is not a bad person, but cyclists who are being lawfully inconsiderate are bad people.

by Neil Flanagan on Aug 11, 2010 8:14 pm • link • report

@Neil, we went through this before ... the 25 mph speed limit is the speed limit for Beach Drive which is in Rock Creek Park and not for the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway which is a parkway and not in Rock Creek Park but in an area that was specifically developed as one of the nations first limited access roads from land that was not ever part of Rock Creek Park.

Btw, tonight at the ANC meeting all but one commissioner expressed dismay that all this bicycle infrastructure was going in without any attention to traffic violations enforcement. All the DDOT rep could do is say 'it's an MPD matter' ... How sad ... no sense of responsibility for the mess he's fashioning.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2010 10:29 pm • link • report

@kwest Very useful information there from a resident perspective. That's a notable point, that most of the people parking here are residents and will quickly get used to bikers in the lane and looking for them on a regular basis.

@lance what do you mean by the traffic violations enforcement comment? Not sure I follow there. Do you mean that DDOT hasn't specifically outlined a plan for MPD as to what to look for here? Like cars blocking the crosswalk or bikers needing to wait for the green bike light? Give that 'un a bit of clarity for me before I respond to make sure I'm on the same page.

by Steve on Aug 12, 2010 1:10 am • link • report

@Lance

It's the ROW problem you just don't seem to get. Too many cyclists take the ROW when it isn't theirs to take. You've hit the nail on the head. As you acknowledged, drivers give ROW ... and many cyclists in this town do not.

Actually, what I said was that drivers give ROW to other *drivers*. Admittedly, compliance is considerably better if it's a driver yielding to a cyclist. It's vanishingly rare that they give it to pedestrians, even when it's clear the pedestrian has the right to it.

Much rarer than finding a cyclist who waits patiently for a light to change before proceeding across the street when there's no cross-traffic.

by oboe on Aug 12, 2010 9:21 am • link • report

@Neil, we went through this before ... the 25 mph speed limit is the speed limit for Beach Drive which is in Rock Creek Park and not for the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway which is a parkway

Parts of it are. Parts aren't. The speed limit for RCP is 25mph between Virginia Ave and the Lincoln Memorial, and there's effectively zero compliance with that law. Same with the entire GW Parkway on the Virginia side.

In any case, in the linked post, you said:

It's still pretty ignorant and arrogant for a bicyclist to plunk themselves in the middle of the fast lane of 4 lanes of traffic averaging 50 mph. Don't you agree?

I'm not sure what your point is in arguing that 100% of drivers exceed the posted RCP speed limit of 35 mph by 10-20 mph, but I don't think it's the point you intended to make.

I'll leave off any charges of "arrogance" or "ignorance", but it does seem at least tone-deaf to demonize folks who are operating completely within the law because they're inconveniencing a set of folks, all of whom are breaking the law. Especially when that lawbreaking is the root of the conflict ("Bikes shouldn't be on the road! Everyone in cars are driving like monkeys on crack!")

It's like charging drivers with arrogance because they don't stop and look both ways when coming to a green traffic signal. After all, if they just proceed through they might hit a cyclist who's blowing through a red light! How arrogant!

by oboe on Aug 12, 2010 9:34 am • link • report

Cyclists *are* drivers. Same rights and duties except where noted. That is the law in all 50 states. (Assuming DC too, but I admit I don't know that for a fact.) The law DOES NOT consider them a completely class of road user.

Patiently waiting for a light to change when there is no cross-traffic is a matter of choice, but in general, when there *is* traffic around, it is much safer and smoother for cyclists to follow standard ROW guidelines, yielding to both cars and pedestrians when ROW calls for it, and we'd all be better off if more did. I find my traffic riding has gotten much smoother since I've learned to think of myself as a driver and act like one, being considerate of others but also appropriately assertive according to my legal rights.

by John Brooking on Aug 12, 2010 9:35 am • link • report

Oops, that should be "a completely *separate* class of road user", at the end of the first paragraph.

by John Brooking on Aug 12, 2010 9:37 am • link • report

This is all very well but the real question has to be: What would the Masonic architects of Washington's street plan think of the new road junction layout??
If they were still alive.

by mick allan on Aug 12, 2010 9:42 am • link • report

It's still pretty ignorant and arrogant for a bicyclist to plunk themselves in the middle of the fast lane of 4 lanes of traffic averaging 50 mph. Don't you agree?

Not at all, if it's legal. In most places (I don't know DC laws specifically), cyclists are legally allowed full use of a lane that's too narrow to share. Maybe there's parked cars at the side, or a shoulder that's unusable for any number of reasons, such as debris or too many driveways that would invite right hooks.

Generally such a cyclist should be using the right-most lane, but perhaps not if they are setting up for a left turn. (It helps to be signaling that to let others know.) Of course you must not change lanes without looking and making sure it's safe to do so. Most multi-lane roads have pretty good sight distance in the travel lanes, so the first motorist overtaking the cyclist has plenty of time to see them and adjust.

I do this quite a bit where I live, around a mall area and over a 4-lane shoulderless bridge with actual speeds often in excess of 50 MPH (posted for 35-45 depending on location). Of course there are a few jerks (although surprisingly few) who yell or honk, but they invariably pass me safely in the next lane while they do so. I just smile and wave (with all 5 fingers). I'm not saying all cyclists should want to do this, or even that it's fun, exactly, but I am asserting that it is perfectly legal and acceptable, because the lanes are too narrow to share. Furthermore, it works, even at relatively slow speeds. (I've done it as slow as 12 MPH, as an experiment. It still works.)

If bicyclists are supposed to be equal to motorists, why is it considered such a sin for a bicyclist to be in front of a motorist who wants to go faster, when the bicyclist has a good and legal reason to be there? Everyone on the road has a right to their own space. It's the taboo of "all life yields to faster traffic", and it leads to bicyclists operating excessively slowly and unsafely at the margins of the road, and to cities spending lots of amount to help cyclists overcome the inherent danger of doing just that, while avoiding challenging the taboo.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page7.html (long but worth reading)

by John Brooking on Aug 12, 2010 11:06 am • link • report

That should be "lots of *money*". That's what happens when you edit excessively. Wish I could correct these in place.

by John Brooking on Aug 12, 2010 11:10 am • link • report

@Oboe, Actually, what I said was that drivers give ROW to other *drivers*. Admittedly, compliance is considerably better if it's a driver yielding to a cyclist. It's vanishingly rare that they give it to pedestrians, even when it's clear the pedestrian has the right to it.

Much rarer than finding a cyclist who waits patiently for a light to change before proceeding across the street when there's no cross-traffic.

I concur ... Especially with the part about drivers yielding to pedestrians (or cyclists yielding to them). I think part of the problem though is that a lot of pedestrians in this city view their ROW as an unconditional right of way at non-traffic-signaled intersections. I know whenever I'm walking and get to a 4 way stop I look all ways ... and coordinate my entry into the crosswalk with the movement of the traffic. I do that not because I need to do that, I know I could take the right of way, but because it's the right thing to do. When traffic (cars, buses, bikes) are at a 4 way stop, they are supposed to take turns at that 4 way stop. And I know that my walking into a crosswalk in front of a car that has the right of way at that moment is not illegal, but still wrong. And I know it's wrong because as a driver I know how badly that simple act can mess up the sequence of the traffic ... which is supposed to include cyclists ... but in this town rarely does.

by Lance on Aug 12, 2010 11:11 am • link • report

@Steve, @lance what do you mean by the traffic violations enforcement comment? Not sure I follow there. Do you mean that DDOT hasn't specifically outlined a plan for MPD as to what to look for here? Like cars blocking the crosswalk or bikers needing to wait for the green bike light? Give that 'un a bit of clarity for me before I respond to make sure I'm on the same page.

Actually, I believe that both these issues were raised last night by commissioners at the ANC meeting. And I mean both. I.e., The larger overall picture is 'Why is DDOT putting the cart before the horse?' Before you start flooding the city with cyclists you need to have sufficient bike infrastructure in place ... and used correctly. That could mean something as simple as extending the bike path alongside Rock Creek parkway, posting 'No Cyclists' signs on the parkway, and ticketing the offenders. It could mean working with MPD prior to designing the NH crossing to ensure the rules as laid out are enforceable ... before laying the project out. I.e., Enforcement is a part of the bigger planning picture. As an example, I used to live in a building where we had "No Parking Anytime" signs right in front of the building. Everyone in the building used that spot to unload and load their things. And very occaisonally someone would get a ticket for being parked there ... even with their blinkers on. As the condo president (and ANC chair), I requested a signage change to '10 Minutes Loading Zone'. It took a year (and many calls to my Ward Councilmember) to get the signage change done. But what I learned after it was installed was simply amazing ... One or 2 'bad apples' in our building figured out quickly that the parking enforcement folks couldn't enforce the '10 Minutes Loading Zone' sign. No parking enforcement staff was going to wait around 10 minutes to see if the same car was in that spot. Nor were they going to note its tag number somewhere so that they could see if that same car was there when they did their next round of the neighborhood. Simply put, those couple of 'bad apples' got themselves permanent parking spaces. They'd pull in and out of them as they pleased ... sometimes leaving their cars there a week at a time. For the rest of us ... we'd lost our drop off space. I spoke to the MPD and the Parking Enforcement folks about the issue and they said 'If you'd asked we could have told you ... "

Well ... The DDOT representative last night said that enforcement is 'an MPD issue'. I wonder if he bothered to ask them if that crossing at New Hampshire and U can be enforced ... BEFORE he implemented it?

by Lance on Aug 12, 2010 2:44 pm • link • report

Before you start flooding the city with cyclists you need to have sufficient bike infrastructure in place ... and used correctly. That could mean something as simple as extending the bike path alongside Rock Creek parkway, posting 'No Cyclists' signs on the parkway, and ticketing the offenders.

I agree, though I would tweak your proposal slightly. A better idea would be to reserve the RCP bike path to pedestrians, then take one of the four lanes currently de-facto reserved for auto traffic and turn it into a two-way dedicated bike lane?

Then you'd have three lanes of car traffic, and two half-lanes reserved for cyclists, then the current path for pedestrians.

Everybody wins...

by oboe on Aug 12, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report

@oboe, Sounds like a good idea. Like Jamie said earlier, no one is against improved bike infrastructure and the like, it's just the lack of higher level planning that we're against. I will say though, I think DDOT has heard us ... and has begun to implement planning and control procedures. For example, they handed out a good study about the 15th Street cycle track last night.

by Lance on Aug 12, 2010 4:03 pm • link • report

posting 'No Cyclists' signs on the parkway

Why should cyclists who want to use the parkway, few as they may be, be prohibited from using it? Dividing roads into "car roads" versus "everyone roads", and prohibiting cyclists from using a public road because there is a "bicycle facility" nearby, is a slippery slope. (Interstate highways have already started that as it is.) What about when they want to prohibit cyclists from using a travel lane because there is a door-zone bike lane on the side of it? For that matter, a separated path with lots of dangerous intersections?

by John Brooking on Aug 12, 2010 4:27 pm • link • report

Don't make it a curbside lane! DDOT did a great job with this design. This is the "desire line" I've ridden for the last 10 years. The southbound NH lane between V & W needs to be in the middle b/c all the cars are forced to turn right at V. So I always ride on the left side of NH southbound to avoid conflicting with turning cars at V. Thanks again DDOT. This is far safer and easier for cyclists. This good design means that more people will want to ride. Next up is extending the 15th Street protected bike lane from U Street north to W Street - I have to ride 2 blocks the wrong way on 15th to get to the cycle track now.

by ccort on Aug 12, 2010 4:52 pm • link • report

About 20 years ago Chicago dropped their experiment with counter-flow lanes for busses after a few pedestrians were killed by the busses traveling on one-way streets, the opposite way in their exclusive curb-lanes. Anyone who has visited England can attest that traffic from an unaccustomed direction can be frightening and dangerous.

by James Degan on Aug 12, 2010 7:34 pm • link • report

@ DAJ

I agree that the left turn signal is too short, but I don't think it should be removed, I think the timer should extend the turn for another 2 to three seconds. I use this turn everyday, and there are normally two to three drivers making the turn. An additional few seconds would eliminate the need to floor it to get across.

by Bob on Aug 13, 2010 8:27 am • link • report

Lance: "For example, they handed out a good study about the 15th Street cycle track last night."

Would it be possible for you to scan and post this somewhere?

One of my most frequent complaints about DDOT is the lack of analysis. Though I am pretty confused as to why they would hand out printed copies of these things at ANC meetings while they remain unavailable on the web site, it is heartening to know that something is being done.

Of course the web site redesign has sacrificed any semblance of usability in favor of a splashy appearance, so it's possible that it's buried there somewhere and I just couldn't find it.

by Jamie on Aug 16, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report