Posts about Bike Boxes

16th Street/U Street New Hampshire

• Motor vehicle intersection [Level of Service (LOS)] remained the same before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Fewer than 20% of cyclists are using the bike box and bike signal as intended to cross the intersection.
  
• 82% of cyclists are stopping in the crosswalk instead of the bike box as intended. Though the bike box may still be effective at giving separation as only 15% of cars are stopping in it.
  
• 13% of Cyclists using the bike signal encounter motor vehicles who are running the red, but are able to navigate through.
  
• There was 1 more bicycle crash (5 vs. 4) at the intersection in the year after the installation than before.

Pennsylvania Ave cycletrack

• Bicycle volume doubled after the cycletrack was installed.
  
• Arterial LOS was similar for motor vehicles on Pennsylvania Avenue before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Danish Bicycle LOS and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI) analyses all show significantly improved operations for cyclists with the median bike facilities.
  
• Signal timing for bicycles generally works well between 10th Street and 15th Street, but results in large delays to cyclists between 3rd Street and 9th Street.
  
• Bike crashes went up 80% after the bike lanes went in (so, not as much as bike traffic went up).
  An average of 42 percent of cyclists arriving on a red signal violated the signal.
  
• Most cyclists stopping at red lights stop in the crosswalk or median area rather than behind the white stop bar.

15th Street cycletrack

• After the two-way cycle track was installed, there was a 205 percent increase in bicycle volumes (from before conditions) between P Street and Church Street during the p.m. peak hour, and there was a 272 percent increase in bicyclist volumes (from before conditions) between T Street and Swann Street during the p.m. peak hour
  
• Motor vehicle counts show that volumes are up a little bit on 15th Street before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
  
• Motor vehicle LOS was basically the same after the cycletrack was installed.
  
• Bicyclists experience less delay on 15th Street between lower E Street and I Street than between I Street and U Street.
  
• The number or crashes again grew, but not as fast as the number of cyclists did (so crash per cyclist went down).
  
• There are potential issues with the existing design, which uses the pedestrian signal to control cyclist movements.
  
• Over 40 percent of cyclists were observed running red lights.
  
• There are now fewer cyclists on the sidewalk.

DDOT is hosting a public meeting on Thursday, May 3, to present more details of the study and discuss the proposed L Street cycletrack from 25th to 12th Streets, NW. The meeting is at the Reeves Center, at the corner of 14th and U, in the 2nd floor community room.

A version of this article was originally posted at TheWashCycle.

This intersection, of Wilson, Washington, and Clarendon Boulevards, is often referred to as "Clarendon Circle," because it used to be one. During the 20th Century the circle was removed and the intersection widened. Now Arlington wants to make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.

There are a lot of interesting things going on with this plan, but the most interesting is the bike queuing zone in the lower right corner of the intersection. The idea is that cyclists hoping to cross Washington Boulevard in order to move east along Clarendon Boulevard will have a dedicated and safe place to wait, separated from both cars and pedestrians.

The two-stage bike box is similar to regular bike boxes, except that it's located in a reserved corner of the intersection rather than between the crosswalk and stopping stripe.

A normal bike box behind the crosswalk on either southbound Washington Boulevard or eastbound Wilson Boulevard would be less versatile, because it would only benefit cyclists on that one street. The two-stage box helps people moving onto Clarendon Boulevard from both Wilson and Washington, which is why it's a clever innovation at this location.

There are a few two-stage bike boxes in Portland and New York, but they use a somewhat different design. Clarendon Circle will be the first implementation of this idea in the DC area, and will also be the first-anywhere use of this particular design, which hugs the curb in an inverted nub.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Dedicated bicycle facilities are a controversial issue among some bicyclists. "Vehicular cyclists" believe it's safer to take the lane rather than riding in dedicated spaces which can be too close to doors, hard to see, prone to right hooks, and more.

However, research has shown the safety benefits of dedicated urban bikeways. They also make many people feel more comfortable riding bikes, and increasing the numbers of cyclists on the road is the surest way to improve safety. The more people ride, the more drivers become used to dealing with people biking, and the safer everyone is.

Even if this project is imperfect, these lanes make a positive addition to DC's bike infrastructure. But the authors of the video are right to point out several problems.

The signs showing where it is legal to park don't line up with the striped lines on the roadway, giving drivers the right to park their cars in a way that partially blocks the lane.

The lane on New Hampshire south of T Street predates the contraflow treatment, and therefore doesn't line up properly to continue onto northbound New Hampshire Ave. Drivers must turn right at T, but are to the left of the lane. That means cyclists going straight through face significant risk of right hooks.

One solution would be for DDOT to sign the bike lane as right turn only, and place bike-through icons or sharrows in the northbound travel lane. The safest thing for northbound cyclists bound for the contraflow lane to do is to mix with cars on the approach to T Street. DDOT should indicate this through proper signage, paint, and lane striping.

Another major issue significant time in the video: the signal timing for cyclists. The short green period means cyclists may not have enough time to get positioned on 16th Street before drivers get the green. And the induction loops to trigger the signal often don't work properly.

DDOT should consider making the bike signal an automatic part of the light cycle instead of being an actuated signal. The sensor may not be calibrated correctly or cyclists may not position themselves correctly. Whatever the reason, long wait times are not optimal.

The video's authors make a big deal out of the dooring risk from the bike lanes, which are close to parked cars. However, since the lane is contraflow, this risk is actually much less than in a standard lane.

DDOT launched this as a pilot, and is supposed to evaluate its success and make changes. However, almost one year has gone by, and DDOT has not addressed the problems which lead some riders to engage in dangerous behavior at a busy intersection.

The lanes on New Hampshire give people a valuable way to ride through this busy area. Hopefully DDOT can start fixing these problems in the near future.

At the intersection, DDOT has installed special bike traffic lights to allow cyclists to cross into the bike-boxes ahead of the queues of car traffic waiting on Sixteenth Street. (See the green bike-boxes ahead of the stop lines in the diagram below.)

This is a pilot project for DDOT and there are a few kinks to work out. First, the bike signals are not placed in ideal positions. Look carefully at southwest corner of the diagram above. Notice that a cyclist stopped at the stop line on New Hampshire Avenue does not directly face a bike signal. The cyclist must know to look to the right and to look up to heights that are unusual for bike signage.

In much of the world, bike signals are placed five to seven feet above the ground. Even if the signals cannot be located to other poles, lowering them on their existing poles could help.

Second, there are induction loops embedded in the pavement to sense a waiting cyclist but there's no indication that cyclists should wait exactly at the stop line in order to trip the sensor. While filming, we pulled to the curb to stop and failed to trip the sensor.

This is merely the first step in DDOT's plan to reconfigure the intersection, which suffers a high number of pedestrian injuries. Until now, these two blocks of New Hampshire Avenue have been the missing link between the New Hampshire Avenue bike lanes and Sixteenth Street and the bike lanes on T and V Streets (eastbound and westbound, respectively).

Cross-posted at Left for LeDroit.

Cyclists coming from New Hampshire will be detected by an induction loop in the roadbed and given a short signal phase that will stop other traffic and allow riders to cross 16th to the bike box. In short, cyclists who wait will be rewarded with a protected crossing of 16th Street.

Although the diagram indicates the lanes will be striped green, this will not be the case at first. The lanes may be striped with color at a later date. The first signs of project implementation are now sprouting at the intersection, including new signals and induction loops.

New signals (left) and induction loops (right).

1. Replace contributory negligence with comparative negligence. Maryland, Virginia and DC are three of only five "states" that use contributory negligence to establish damage awards in civil cases. Under this standard, if an injured road user was even 1% at fault for a crash with another road user they would be unable to recover damages unless they could prove that the other road user had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident. Last clear chance involves proving four separate facts about the crash, all of which must be true, and can be difficult to prove.

   Every other jurisdiction uses some form of comparative negligence, which allows the injured party to recover some of their loses even if they were partially to blame. Contributory negligence is loved by big business and the insurance industry but it punishes victims—who are disproportionally pedestrians and cyclists—twice, and should be changed.

2. Close the negligent driving loophole. In Virginia and Maryland, it can be very difficult to convict a negligent driver with a crime. In both states recently, drivers who were over-driving their vision or not paying attention hit cyclists from behind and killed them. In one case the driver got a $313 ticket in the other the driver wasn't punished at all.

   The problem is that simple negligence is only a misdemeanor in Maryland and not a crime at all in Virginia. DC, on the other hand, has a law against "careless, reckless or negligent" driving that can result in 5 years in prison or a fine of up to $5000. Virginia and Maryland should close the loophole that allows negligent driving to be treated as "just an accident."

3. Ban distracted driving. Distracted driving is quickly emerging as one of the major causes of road casualties. DC, Maryland and Virginia should move swiftly to make distracted driving (and that includes cycling) illegal.

   This means making texting while driving a primary offense in Virginia, where now it is a secondary offense, and increasing the fine from $20. It means banning the use of electronic devices while driving, including phones, computers, pagers and video games. Hands-free phones aren't significantly safer than hand-held phones and drivers should not be allowed to use those either. Finally, drivers should not be allowed to manipulate a GPS device while driving, though they can listen to directions.

4. Treat cycling as transportation. Complete Streets is a doctrine requiring transportation agencies to build roadways that enable safe access for all users. Several states have adopted complete streets legislation or policies.

   Maryland adopted weak Complete Streets legislation in 2000, but it needs to be stronger. Virginia has a policy to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians, but it needs to be expanded. DC has no complete streets policy and should pass legislation to that effect.

   In addition, both DC and Maryland should emulate Virginia's ban on culs-de-sac, as they make for circuitous cycling on traffic sewers. M-NCPPC should end its policy of closing trails at night or when it snows and region-wide, critical trails should be cleared after a heavy snow. People still commute at those times.

5. Leave a safe distance. Maryland and Virginia should follow DC's lead and pass a three feet minimum passing distance law, as well as a law making it illegal to open a car door unless it is safe to do so.

6. Fix equipment requirements. Maryland, Virginia and DC require some equipment that isn't needed, fail to require one piece of valuable equipment and should try to standardize their light rules.

   The three have different laws about what kind of lights are required, but a common set of rules would help DC area cyclists. Combining the three state's laws could create a requirement for, at minimum, a front light visible 500 feet away attached to the bike, a rear light visible at the same distance attached to the bike or the rider and a rear reflector visible 100 feet away.

   While bells are nice, they shouldn't be required. I've never met a cyclist who thought their life, or anyone else's, was saved by a bell. And Maryland and Virginia should match DC's unique law allowing fixed gear bikes without a separate brake.

7. Improve the return of recovered and impounded bikes. All three jurisdictions should create a process that maximizes the number of recovered stolen bikes and impounded bikes returned to owners. They should check all such bikes against the national bike registries. They should place photos of them on a recovered bike web site, as Arlington County does, and make it searchable by serial number.

   The serial number of bikes that are auctioned, donated or scrapped should be recorded in a searchable online database so that owners can recover the money or donation receipt for their bike. All jurisdictions should regularly report recovered bike statistics such as total number, number returned, number disposed, etc... as well as registries used to return them.

8. Let cyclists decide where to ride. The uniform vehicle code, which most states use to define traffic laws, requires cyclists to ride "as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" and then lists several exceptions. While Denver has rewritten the law to make cyclists the judge of where in the lane a cyclist should ride, a more dramatic change is needed.

   It's not unreasonable to require cyclists to move right to accommodate faster traffic when safe and necessary, but attempting to codify this has led to frequent misinterpretation. A better rule would require riding right only when the lane is wide enough to allow a car to pass a bicycle safely in the same lane (safe), and when there is only one lane in that direction (necessary). Those cases are actually quite rare, so DC, MD and VA could be required to sign those roads as "Ride Right Roads." In addition, Maryland should repeal its law requiring cyclists to use bike lanes and shoulders when present.

9. Let cyclists ride more than two abreast. Most places limit cyclists riding in a group from riding more than two abreast, and only when not being passed. Cyclists riding in an informal group ride often find themselves riding three or even four abreast, and under current law that's illegal. Instead the law should only require cyclists to stay in a single lane, except when legally changing lanes, and to move right to facilitate overtaking vehicles when judged safe and necessary.

10. Improve access and parking. Building rules restricting bike commuters from bringing bikes inside as well as rules restricting bike parking in the public space make it unnecessarily difficult to park a bike. The region should adopt a rule similar to New York City's Bicycle Access to Buildings law which requires buildings to allow bicycles inside under certain circumstances. Cyclists should also be allowed to park their bikes to poles within bus zones or located within 25 feet of an intersection.

11. Decriminalize safe cycling. Laws that were written for cars and drivers shouldn't necessarily be applied to bikes and cyclists. The Idaho stop law allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and stop lights as stop signs, which is what many cyclists do anyway. Since it's inception in Idaho, cycling has actually gotten safer.

    Another change should allow cyclists waiting at a light to move past the advanced stop line while the light is still red so as to stay in front of and in view of drivers. And finally, Maryland should review its law requiring cyclists to have both hands available for reaching the handlebars. DC and VA don't have such a ban and and this law could make it illegal for a cyclist to do something as simple as grab a water bottle.

12. Allow more sidewalk cycling. Though sidewalk cycling is a critical tool to effective cycling, it's illegal in Prince William County, Alexandria and most of Maryland.

    While it might make sense to ban it in certain areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, such as DC's Central Business District, a county-wide ban is excessive and imprecise. These jurisdictions should make bans the exception and not the rule. Even in areas where its been decided that a ban makes sense, the law should allow riding on the sidewalk for the purpose of parking, as is done in Denver.

Square corners at 17th. On the northeast corner of 17th and U, which is the back of the police station, the sidewalk angles toward the building instead of making a complete square corner. Coming south on 17th there is only one lane, which oddly widens as cars approach the intersection even though there's still only one arrow.

We should straighten the sidewalk to shorten the crossing distance and provide more space at that corner. It might not be utterly needed right now, but that block, on a high-traffic street in a major commercial district, should one day be redeveloped to create a new police and fire station inside a larger mixed-use complex with retail fronting on U. If that's done, the new building could use some of the dead area alongside the police station on 17th, maybe for a sidewalk cafe, and a straighter sidewalk expands the possibilities.

North side of 17th and U. Click for larger diagram of the entire intersection.

More bulb-outs and bus bulbs. 17th has a bulb-out on the northwest corner (above) and 14th has a bus bulb. But why only those intersections? The eastbound corner at 14th is one with two lanes, one straight and left, and one straight and right. Clearly, DDOT is willing to block the straight and right lane as long as the left lane also allows cars to go straight.

That same condition applies eastbound at 15th and 13th, 11th, 10th, and 9th, and westbound at Vermont Avenue, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th. Why did DDOT decide to put in a bus bulb in just that one spot and not at any of these others?

Longer sidewalk widening east of 14th. The mid-block bulb-out between 14th and 13th (above) is pretty short, and it looks like there's not much room to go around the stairways on each end. Why not make it longer? For that matter, what about making it go all the way west to 14th? That's an extremely crowded section, and with the alley, there aren't that many parking spaces over there (maybe 5 or 6).

Here are some other potential improvements to the current plan. DDOT may have good reason for not doing these, or it may simply have been easier not to spend time thinking about them. I'd love to hear more about whether these could have been possible (or still could be):

Far side bus stops. The trend in bus stop location is toward ones on the far side of intersections. And when we add signal priority for buses, having the stops at the far side lets them gain more speed with signal priority. This reconstruction is a good opportunity to move the stops.

Bicycle infrastructure. U Street could use more bike racks. And how about some bike boxes? Maybe we want people to use T and V instead of U, and I can understand that, but some people ride on U and some need to, to get to and from businesses or residences near U (especially if you want to obey the law and not ride wrong way on 15th, for example). Bike boxes don't cost us much when we're already rebuilding the street.

Loading zones. Many of the businesses have trucks double parking on U to load and unload. Instead, how about a few loading zones, maybe one per block, to serve the businesses and keep trucks out of the travel lanes?

More trees. The south side between 15th and 16th has no trees at all, and some other areas have sparser trees than they should. Trees would make the street much more welcoming. If the sidewalk is too narrow, we could put a mini-bulb-out just wide enough for a tree in the parking area, between two parking spaces. That would only take away a foot or two, and a whole block of them could probably go in at the cost of only one car parking space.

Tree grates. The plan calls for tree boxes all along the street. A tree grate lets pedestrians use more of the sidewalk and allows the tree box to be even larger, giving the tree more soil. These could be great on narrower sidewalks.

Straighten inside curve of mega-bulb-outs. The bulb-outs on 16th look cute from above with their circular shape, but there's some wasted dead space along the inside curve on New Hampshire. Cars will just come straight diagonally from the entrance way. If that inside edge were straight, pedestrians could walk more directly to and from intersection along New Hampshire. Most likely they will step down into the street and back up again.

Overall, this reconstruction will improve U Street, and in a few cases like 16th, improve it tremendously. If we spend too much time arguing about every street, nothing may get done. Still, we only rebuild a street once a generation, if that, and we should take the opportunity to make a street the best it can be.