DDOT going with 5th Alternative for 15th Street

I just got a mass email from Christopher Ziemann with DDOT about the 15th Street Redesign. As you may recall DDOT came up with four possible designs for the street that would put it on a road diet and give more space to cyclists. WABA supported Alternative 3 (pictured), which turned the one-way street into a two-way street with bike lanes in each direction.

There was a solicitation of opinion that created a statistical dead heat the way DDOT calculated it. They allowed people at the meeting to rank each alternative and then scored them 1-5 with the lowest score being deemed best. But then they got emails and mail responses that only ranked their favorite. So they had to combine a range voting system with a single vote system. Reversing out the numbers, alternative 3 was a strong winner by my count. It was ranked a 2.9 by the 40 people at the meeting and was named 'best solution' by 20 of the 66 people who wrote in, or approximately 27 of 106 people deemed it the best of the five options (no build was also an option, and came in 2nd with about 21).

This is not how DDOT saw it and they didn't feel they had the enough of a mandate to move forward with any of them.

So they came out with alternative 5. It leaves 15th a one-way street and narrows it to three lanes with two bike lanes.  The contraflow bike lane is placed outside the parked cars. Again, comments were solicited. 15 people favored it. 2 opposed it and 52 people's opinions were not counted. DDOT called these 52 "unrelated (such as preferring a different alternative, two-way traffic in general, etc)." How is wanting one of the other alternatives, or a two-way street "unrelated"? I think that is an overwhelming voice against Alternative 5. That's like voting "none of the above" at least.

DDOT should release all the numbers they have. Not just how each alternative scored in the first round, but how many people preferred which with what kind of score. All 3's is not necessarily as good as half 1's and half 5's. And which alternative did those 52 people prefer? If all 52 wanted two-way traffic, wouldn't that indicate that two-way traffic is preferred?

Nonetheless,

DDOT has decided to pursue Alternative 5. This would be done as a pilot project, to be evaluated and possibly replicated in other parts of the District. If successful, plans can be put into place to make this solution permanent, or to pursue some variation of this. This will be the first of its kind in the District, both as a separated bicycle lane, and also as a counter-flow lane to one-way traffic.

Here are the answers to some commonly asked questions DDOT included.

1. Will DPW be able to clean a bike lane only 5’ wide?

Yes, DDOT has coordinated with the street cleaning crew and they have assured us that they are able to clean it?

2. Will the impact on traffic in the afternoon be significant?

No, motor vehicle level of service would remain virtually the same and exceed District’s standards for all intersections.

4. Is a one-foot buffer sufficient to separate vehicles from bicycles?

Maybe, there seem to be two opinions in the bicycle community. A door is usually two feet long, so an open door would (theoretically) enter a foot into the bicycle lane. This should (theoretically) leave enough room for bicycles, however this will be an evaluation criterion.   In any case, drivers in parked cars will be facing bicyclists so the risk of dooring will be lower than with a conventional bike lane.

5. Would church double parking simply block the northbound bicycle lane?

Yes, however traffic flows on Sundays are minimal and do not pose a great threat to bicyclists in mixed traffic.

6. Can we work in bulbouts for pedestrian safety?

Maybe, DDOT is working right now to finalize the details of intersection crossings, alley crossings, etc. to increase the safety and reduce the likelihood of crashes. These may include bulb-outs.

Comments

[ontarioroader]

So church double parking is now officially authorized by the city?

[jeff]

As has been discussed on here and GGW, the ability to have public comment on this outside of ANC meetings was definitely welcomed, though I too feel the process that arrived at Option #5 was skewed. So goes the nature of building consensus.....

As for the responses to the frequent questions:

1) I'll believe it when I see it, but will give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

2)Again (and again and again), why are we still measuring CAR level or service here, when the majority of the changes are for cyclists, yet no similar level of service was done to measure the impact on cyclists??? What impact will this have on bike commuting patterns in this area? If bike/ped related funding sources are being used, should it be evaluated for priority over other proposed projects in the works and in the Master Plan?

4)I can't support only a one foot buffer. With door zone bike lanes at least you can move into the adjacent travel lane to avoid them (and they're wider than 2')- with this you hit the curb. That's on a good day. Throw in debris, random pedestrians, trash cans(there is curb pick up along that side with some houses) and the occasional grate and you make it very difficult and potentially dangerous to use. Contrarian, please bookmark the link to this comment and reference as needed ;)

5) It's not legal behavior and should be cracked down on with any implementation. The city needs to stop providing MD residents(check the tags this Sunday) who don't pay taxes here.

6) If we get them can Chris Z. make sure they are implemented at the same time the bike lanes are? The bike/ped budget is small enough already, money shouldn't be wasted to grind up and move anymore bike lanes.

What question hasn't been answered is how light signaling will happen for opposing traffic. Also the cross section given do not show intersections, which is where the overwhelming majority of crashes occur. What will sight lines be like? Where will parking end/begin to offer better visibility for the contra-flow cyclists? Will there be colored pavement markings to further alert turning motorists? Will there be wrong way signage for northbound cyclists in the southbound lane who seek the refuge of the physically seperated lane? How will left turns from the seperated lanes be addressed?

To me, as a former resident along this street, it still doesn't address the stated purpose of the redesign, which was to dramatically calm traffic. This is why I pushed for a two way street. Not having an impact on car LOS means there will still be MD commuters driving way too fast, and it still won't be as pleasant place to ride, walk or live as it should be.

[Clay Shentrup]

You say they "ranked" the options from 1-5. Do you actually mean "rated"? Range voting (aka score voting) uses ratings, not rankings. That is, you can score the 4 proposals like A=1, B=2, C=2, D=5. A ranked system that turns the rankings to points (namely, the Borda method) is MUCH worse than score voting.

[Contrarian]

Once again DDOT is applying the wishful thinking model of facility construction. They're statement that "a door is usually two feet long" is just nonsense. A chart of actual vehicle widths is here: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/doorwidth.htm.

Even if that were the case, designing for typical size is irresponsible. Using that logic, bridges would be 7' high because most vehicles are only that high. DC allows vehicles to use the roads and park that are up to 8'6" wide, not including mirrors.

As Jeff noted, the bike lane with curbs on both sides is a death trap -- cyclists have no where to go if the lane is obstructed.

I also have to question the statement, "This would be done as a pilot project, to be evaluated and possibly replicated in other parts of the District. If successful, plans can be put into place to make this solution permanent, or to pursue some variation of this." Are they implementing any test procedure to measure success? Have they even defined what success is?

[washcycle]

Yes I mean they ranked them, not rated. It would be much better if someone were able to give a value to how good or bad each choice was.

But Jeff makes a good point, that the opinion of users should only be one element in the decision. Instead, a list of requirements should have been defined, and a design that best meets those requirements chosen. Otherwise they're letting the tail wag the dog.

[anonymous]

This sucks. cyclists need to get more militant in this city.

[neb]

Totally agree. I don't see how the vast majority in the 52 emails can be dubbed "unrelated." Leaving this street a one-way is a bad decision.You could still have two lanes north and make it two way??