Comments on DDOT will extend successful 15th Street cycle track - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by oboe

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:48:32 EDT

@Jacob,

I think it's important that they know that it's legal for bike to ride on the street, even if a cycle track is provided.

That's my concern as well. I was riding back from Georgetown on Saturday morning, and decided to try the Penn Ave bike lanes (in the median). After a few blocks, of slow going, and getting stuck behind a flock of Segways, I jumped over to the travel lanes for the rest of the trip. ("Bicycles Turn Using Crosswalk", um, "No thanks?")

In my opinion, they're somewhat overengineered, and probably more dangerous than simply taking the right-most lane. Of course, I'm comfortable riding in the street; that's not the case for the folks we want to encourage to start riding.

My biggest problem with these segregated facilities is that there's a well-known sentiment among drivers that if there's a "perfectly good bike path over there" then cyclists should be in it. The greatest benefit of sharrows is that they help legitimize the perfectly legal and proper practice of riding in the road.

Comment by Jacob

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:25:43 EDT

Jazzy,
First, I think that cyclists who want to ride fast are going to do so no matter what, so I don't really think it's that big an issue. Few cyclists are going to rally against these cycle tracks because you have to travel slightly slower in them. It's not worth the effort when you can simply ride in the street. These cycle tracks are built for people who aren't yet on a bike, or who are never comfortable on the road as it is. The only time cyclists rally against a cycle track is when there are significant safety concerns. This happened in Minneapolis where a cycle track squeezed bikes into a narrow door zone between parked cars and the curb. (http://bit.ly/aY4ZXM)

As for drivers, I think it's important that they know that it's legal for bike to ride on the street, even if a cycle track is provided. I'm not sure what the laws are in DC, though. I think leaving the sharrows would probably be a good idea, but I think it's a fairly minor point overall. The most important thing is to get people out riding, because that seems to be the biggest factor in making cycling safer. Cycle tracks are a proven way to make folks comfortable enough to start cycling.

Comment by Jazzy

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:21:04 EDT

Jacob,

Can't the very experienced and fast DC cyclists ride in the main roadway? I mean, I know the answer is yes, but I suppose my question is, do cyclists understand that this is the way to go (in your opinion), and perhaps more important, do drivers?

Comment by Jacob

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:14:02 EDT

I have a few comments, coming from both Montreal and New York and seeing the cycle tracks in both places. First, I believe the proposed configuration in DC will get a LOT of people to use bikes. It creates a slow biking environment that is protected from car traffic, connects to destinations and other cycle tracks, and provides an obvious return route. That said, the narrow 2-way design will create a slower biking environment. You simply can't ride at a fast speed without hitting other bikes. Thus, in Montreal, the slower, more cautious riders (parents, kids, older folks, etc.) all use the cycle tracks, and those that want to bike fast use other streets. Thus, it appears that the narrower, 2-way design both encourages more people to try cycling, and slows down the cycling environment, benefiting pedestrians and the public perception of cyclists. The DC plan should function similarly, and appears to address some of the safety issues of the Montreal design.

In NYC, they are still having a lot of problems will asshole bikers terrorizing pedestrian while riding in the new cycle tracks. This makes it more difficult to build more cycle tracks.

I am very curious to see the plans for the bus stop. NYC avoids the issue altogether, while both Montreal and Vancouver build a bus stop with a raised crosswalk across the cycle track. The plans here show nothing, which is a non-solution.

Comment by HoneyBadger

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:52:09 EDT

@harry5k: I know, and in fact I dislike sharrows for that very reason, because to me they imply that bikes aren't entitled to share the road everywhere, sharrows or no sharrows. My concern is that if they take away a car lane on 15th to make room for a northbound bike lane (it's unclear to me from the story that they will take away a car lane, but it seems like they'll have to find some space somewhere), the average driver will be less friendly toward riders who choose to stay in the right lane. And if that happens, that makes me less safe even though I am entitled to ride there.

Comment by aaa

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:45:29 EDT

I like the sharrows lane too. Still, many northbound riders were using the southbound bike lane, creating a dangerous situation for everyone involved. This new design will add at least some safety to this road.

Comment by harry5k

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:34:55 EDT

@honeybadger the removal of the sharrows doesn't change the fact that cyclists have the right to use the northbound lanes on 15th st. in fact, cyclists are perfectly free to use all three northbound lanes at any time, should they need to.

Comment by HoneyBadger

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:11:56 EDT

I'm with Herostratus. These proposed changes on 15th are going to ruin things for us northbound riders (and there are a lot of us). That sharrow lane is one of the safest, easiest places in town to ride home during rush hour. If cyclists really believe that riding the wrong way in that deathtrap of a bike lane is safer than riding with traffic in the right lane of a one-way street, then we have a problem that infrastructure can't fix.

Comment by Peter Lemonjello

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:11:30 EDT

@Eric Fidler

That's because DDOT finally untimed the lights. It used to be that if you caught the first light (Mass Ave), you could cruise all the way to U without having to slow down. I, for one, am happy DDOT finally untimed the lights.

I like that DDOT is making it a two-way bike lane, but I share the safety concerns that others have voiced. It seems like it will be hard for a car taking a left hand turn to see a bicyclist heading northbound.

Comment by Charles

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:06:51 EDT

I like the green paint for bike lanes where they cross alleys and driveways, as well as the green chevrons through intersections. It also looks like they wonÂ’t allow parked cars along the bike lane approaching an intersection, and they're installing signs to remind turning drivers to look for cyclists. Hopefully, these will serve as visual cues for drivers resulting in fewer collisions.

Comment by Eric Fidler

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:43:00 EDT

It's interesting to see that the 85 percentile speed dropped from 35 mph to 28 mph without DDOT having to add any stop signs or speed bumps.

Comment by Joey

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:15:07 EDT

Striping plan pages 4 and 5 are missing. These show the area around the due-east-west section of Pennsylvania Avenue (by the banks and Treasury) up to H Street.

Comment by CJ

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:35:05 EDT

I'm also worried about the safety of a two way bike lane. Cars driving north and making a left hand turn are able to see the south bound cyclists coming toward them in the lane and yield accordingly. North bound bicycles will be behind a parked car and moving approximately the same speed as the turning vehicle. There's no clear sight line for the auto driver, and not much of one for the cyclists, who wont be able to see the turn signal on the car.

Comment by Herostratus

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:10:22 EDT

I'm actually rather disappointed by this. I use 15th northbound daily and much prefer to be out in the right lane - even if it's shared with traffic - than trapped in a narrow strip behind parked cars which left-turning vehicles zoom through without looking. Drivers just don't expect to encounter cyclists moving around behind a line of parked cars. It would have been vastly better to have a northbound cycle lane (even if it didn't have any kind of barrier) on the right side of the road.

As it is now, it gets used by joggers and cars stopped for deliveries fairly often too - and it's so narrow you can't get around them when that happens. (What do you do when a van is driving up the contraflow lane northbound? You've got no option but to hop the curb!)

Also seems like it'd be really narrow for two lanes.

Either I'll continue to use the right side of the road or I'll seek out a different route.

Comment by andrew

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:47:37 EDT

Presumably those bollards on the curbside can be moved to the outer edge of the cycle track? Seems silly to double-up on them.

Using the flex-posts as an interim measure seem like a good idea until we've got the lanes configured in a manner that cyclists and drivers agree upon (they're ugly, but cheap). As the Pennsylvania Ave lanes showed us, we still haven't quite figured out the magic formula for installing bike lanes.

Comment by Fritz

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:24:13 EDT

I imagine the tourist and food vendors along 15th Street are going to throw a fit when DDOT tries to move them from their spots in favor of a bike lane.

Who would a Mayor Gray choose in such a situation? The long-time vendors? Or the bike lanes crowd?

Comment by Fred

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:19:15 EDT

This is much needed between E and U streets.

Comment by David R.

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:02:37 EDT

That bike track is really narrow for two-way operation.

Comment by aaa

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:02:08 EDT

This is terrific news. The increased bike traffic will hopefully discourage the stroller and jogger brigades that like to use these lanes.