Streetscape improvements in Brookland

From Richard Layman

There has been a lot of complaining on Brookland e-lists about the bulbouts stating that they protrude into the driving lane and obstruct bicycle lanes.

While I think that bicycle lanes could have been implemented slightly better on the 800 and 900 blocks of Monroe Street, I don't think that people's complaints hold water.

Comments

[Contrarian]

This picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/3250926198/

looks like the kind of bike lane DDOT loves. The "we don't really have enough space for cars and bikes to ride side by side, so we'll mash the bikes against the parked cars to get them out of the way of drivers" bike lane.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: cyclists are worse served with something like that than with no bike lane.

[Charlie D.]

Hey Contrarian,

I get your point but what's your solution? It looks to me like the car closest to the intersection is actually quite a bit away from the curb. Perhaps the parking lane should be narrower and the bike lane wider?

[washcycle]

Actually it's worse than the picture Contrarian linked to. I just rode over there - it was only a few blocks out of my way. Most of the bike lane is fine, but there is one very bad part.

Riding east over the railroad tracks there is a bike lane. It dead ends into a bulbout over the crest of the bridge so that you don't see it until you're 10 feet away. The bike lane picks up on the other side of the bulbout so that a nice 10 yard bunny hop is needed to use it all. Not good.

[Eric]

Does anyone have a good photos of the bike lane Dave is talking about?

[jeff]

cyclists are worse served with something like that than with no bike lane.

I disagree. Until the bike lanes were striped I would always just take Michigan/Queens Chapel to go to Hyattsville, figuring with the 1.5 lanes that were there before I might as well choose the more direct route if I was going to have to contend with A-holes determined to drive 50+mph. In the few times I've used them, the bike lanes have calmed traffic dramatically, and drivers now 'get' why I'm using that road. Give me slower, more aware traffic with bike lanes I need to occasionally leave any day...

Last time I rode through construction crews had the bike lanes blocked, I assume to put in these bulb-outs. I can't imagine the plans for these would be signed off on by a DDOT engineer, and can only assume it was the mistake of the contracted road crew, as has been the problem with some of the other bike lane striping across town. Maybe its time for DDOT to stop signing checks until the jobs are done correctly?

[Contrarian]

I have to strongly disagree with the comment "I can't imagine the plans for these would be signed off on by a DDOT engineer."

DDOT, as a matter of policy creates unsafe and unusable facilities. Go read their bike facility design guide. It's at http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1245,q,640118,ddotNav_GID,1761,ddotNav,%7C34416%7C.asp.

Reading the guide, you get a strong impression that they view the sole purpose of bike facilities as getting bikes out of the way of cars. The presumption in the design guide is that cyclists will ride in the door zone when parking is present. Cyclists are expected to ride much closer to parked cars than any other vehicle -- the only time when the design guide allows a travel lane of any kind to be put in a door zone is when that lane is a bike lane.

Particularly egregious is the treatment of sharrows. AASHTO says that sharrows are to be used for one purpose: to signify that cyclists and motorist should share the lane. DDOT uses sharrows to create bike lanes where an AASHTO-compliant bike lane is impossible. Sharrows are for narrow lanes, but nowhere in the guide are sharrows shown on a lane less than 12' wide. The guide specifies the placement of sharrows relative to the curb, rather than to the center of the travel lane. When parking is present the guide specifies that the sharrows should be 11' from the curb, which puts them right in the door zone.

I also strongly disagree with the claim that the problem is with the flawed implementations of good designs. When I look at some of the worst examples -- Thomas Circle, E Street NW -- the problem is not that the paint was put on the wrong part of the pavement. Rather, the layout of the street is such that there is no safe use of bike lanes there, and any competent engineer would have known that.

[jeff]

Contrarian- Your anti-facility stance is well documented in your comments here. While I won't waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, I do find your comments rather divisive and misleading. While I too recognize the faults in some of these designs, the fact is they comply with federal guidelines that must go through rather arduous testing. To simply dismiss them as "dangerous" is rather disingenuous. You've systematically ignored the other aspects of on-road facilities such as traffic calming, encouragement to new riders, visual cues/education to motorists, etc. etc. etc.

the only time when the design guide allows a travel lane of any kind to be put in a door zone is when that lane is a bike lane

Huh? is the right hand lane on a multi-lane road not within the door zone? When there is a 14' adjacent to on-street parking is the additional 4' not still part of that lane? It is still a bit of a red herring argument, when the impetus is on the motorist or passenger to not open their door into moving traffic.

Neither AASHTO or MUTCD have approved the use of "sharrows" yet, so your argument is off base. All relevant discussions and most (if not all) approved sharrow pilots have designs relative to curb distance, and not center of lane as you suggest.

Thomas Circle is dangerous, but the planned improvements were never completed. When proposed, the bike lanes were to be painted and additional 'yield to bikes' signage was to be installed. The problem with E Street is the unenforcable double parking at the FBI headquarters and other exempt agency vehicles and the constant merge/turn lanes due to the short blocks, parking garages and alleys. What the lanes on this block have done is dramatically reduced traffic speed (at least through my limited observations), making for a much safer cycling environment.

[ibc]

In the few times I've used them, the bike lanes have calmed traffic dramatically, and drivers now 'get' why I'm using that road.

Yep. Til the first time someone opens a door, you move into the "traffic lane"--where you're not supposed to be--and one of these drivers who "gets" why you're using the bike lane feels justified in running you down because you're in the wrong lane. It's the same reason that drivers feel justified in riding at the very threshold of the bike lane, giving you far less than 3' of clearance.

"It is still a bit of a red herring argument, when the impetus is on the motorist or passenger to not open their door into moving traffic."

No clearly you don't understand. You ride as far right as practicable--out of the door zone. If conditions make it necessary, you take up more of the lane. The other road users make use of their coping skills to pass when it's appropriate.

Sadly, Contrarian's completely right on this one. Bike lanes are convenient for drivers, and assuage the fears of unskilled cyclists.

[Contrarian]

I'm not anti-facility. I pro-good-facility. Sadly, DDOT's current policies make good facilities unlikely.

Sharrows are in AASHTO's latest MUTCD. (How's that for jargon!). In the guidance, they clearly state that they're to be used when a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and automobile to share side-by-side. Interestingly, no where in DDOT's facility guide is the possibility of a lane that is too narrow to share mentioned anywhere. That such a possibility exists is outside the ken of DDOT, which is strange when probably 90% of the lane miles in the city are designed that way. Hence my comment that nowhere in the guide are sharrows shown on a lane less than 12' wide. Under the MUTCD, sharrows should only be used on lanes under 12'.

As for curb lanes in the door zone: DDOT normally doesn't allow curb lanes to be less than 10', while non-curb lanes can be 8'. That extra two feet is to keep motor vehicles out of the door zone. Hence my comment about normally not allowing traffic in the door zone. If you look at the pictures in the facility guide, the minimum distance from the curb for the left hand side of the outside lane is the same bike lane or no. The bike lane is created out of space that they don't feel is safe for other vehicles to drive in.

Thomas Circle shouldn't have bike lanes, period. It's an intersection, and both MUTCD and the DDOT facility guide say no bike lanes in intersections. Putting up signs that say "yield to bikes" is just compounding faulty engineering. What would have been an appropriate facility there would have been sharrows in the travel lanes. (See, I'm not anti-facility).

The problem with E street is that there are spots where there's not enough room for bike lanes, even under DDOT's sub-standard standards, but they painted them anyway -- as narrow as 30" in spots.
This is an example of the wishful thinking school of facilities design, which believes that cyclists can magically make themselves skinny when facilities shrink or vanish.

Many non-cyclists also subscribe to this belief; a frequent complaint about cyclists is that they take up too much room on the road and they need to just "get over." Facilities like this don't help our cause; they just reinforce the wishful thinking.

Celebrating poorly designed facilities as victories for advocacy really doesn't help our cause.

I'm sorry if you consider my being factual divisive. Hopefully you'll come over to my way of thinking and we can be united once more.

[AJ Pasl]

In my own opinion, of course, the single biggest help to "our cause" is to get more people out of cars and onto bicycles. Yes, bicycle lanes aren't perfect. The cyclist is forced to ride to the left of the bicycle lane to keep out of range of most doors, and even then, the odd super-long door can still pose a (rare) threat. So a cyclist has to be attentive, situationally aware, and be riding a bicycle with brakes. I think we'd ask the same of drivers.

Respect, safety, and tolerance will come when all drivers view cyclists as rightful road users, whether it's because the driver him or herself enjoys the occasional ride, or because they share the road with hundreds of cyclists every day. The best thing we can do is to reduce the psychological barriers to new cyclists by providing the lanes they can "feel" comfortable in riding in, and by doing so increase the number of cyclists on the road.

Frankly, I see no timely alternative. Roads that are ideally sized for both vehicular and bicycle travel would require extensive and expensive resizing, for which neither the political will nor the money is available. Sidewalk cycling is, and always will be, dangerous and slow. And the police, for all their benefits, will never ticket drivers to the extent necessary to make driver behavior safe for new, inexperienced cyclists.

[jeff]

Hopefully you'll come over to my way of thinking and we can be united once more.

You know, the internet is funny in that we probably agree more (much more) about these issues than we disagree. Blogs, message boards, etc. just have a way of magnifying those differences. I too don't like poorly designed facilities- Just ask the bike program staff about my longwinded, borderline ranting emails and calls. I think complaining about DDOT's design guides that are in compliance with federal guidelines is a forest for the trees issue- let's make the AASHTO/MUTCD guidelines better.

This posting wasn't about sharrows, so I won't get into them further here except to say the current MUTCD guide that includes them isn't final yet.

[washcycle]

A friend of mine once said, "we disagree all the time." And I said "no, we spend all our time on our disagreements. When we agree, we move on." So I agree with what you're saying Jeff.