15th Street Expansion and redesign

I mentioned this last week, but wasn't able to go into it in detail. DC is expanding the cycletrack on 15th St NW and reconfiguring the section that does exist.

Among the changes:

• Removing the sharrows from the northbound right lane
• Changing the cycletrack to go in both directions
• Widening the cycletrack near intersections, separating the lanes and creating a buffer around it.
• Adding green paint near intersections
• Extending the cycletrack south to E and north to W

You can see the widening in this close up of 15th and P NW

In addition bike boxes will be added on 15th south at L, M west at 15th, R west at 15th, V west at 15th and from the T street bike lane going east at 15th.

They plan to move the White House queuing lane for deliveries at the White House access road from 15th to the 1400 block of E Street and parking for the Mayor's staff from the 1400 block of E Street to the 1200 block of Pennsylvania. 

I'll miss the sharrows. I found that lane nice, because cars knew you belonged and there were always a lot of cyclists in it. And like TBD's Dave Jamieson, I worry that the two-way cycletrack will feel cramped.

You can read more on GGW, which does a good job of covering the gaps and the conflict with food vendors south of E.

Comments

[Eric]

If the two way cycle track is supposed to be 8 feet wide along its entire length it will present a huge problem on the section from Euclid south to U. You would likely get up a head of steam heading down that hill.

[Chris]

What's the green paint supposed to do?

[MB]

Make it a green project, Chris. Duh.

[Chris]

I remember way back when they put in the bike lanes at Thomas Circle, I wrote a letter to DDOT saying that I felt that they were a problematic and dangerous design as cars just don't use turn signals in circles and they certainly don't consider a bike lane a regular lane of traffic when turning. They said they were planning on painting the lanes to make it clearer that the lanes are there - for some reason, that's never happened.

[nookie]

Quite a few comments here.

DDOT strangely puts actual numbers to all their metrics...except for the supposed increased ridership where they just say "increased by 40%". I suspect it is because it sounds much more impressive than "increased by 92 bikers).
Secondly, everyone is pretending to be shocked that traffic slowed down. Well hello, they untimed the lights. Not exactly rocket science and that could have been done at any point in the past.

I also find it pretty funny that DDOT, nor anyone else cared to comment on the massive gross increase of vehicles on the road: Slide 8 "Total Vehicles" increased by a whopping 862 over the same period last year, or 8.5%. Why was DDOT oddly silent on that :) It is pretty disingenuous to just generally say "fewer" cars on the street, when its 39 fewer cars during peak., but 862 more overall. Then again, thats like saying that 1 minute of standard peaks car volume was removed from the road.

Lastly, their ROI is a joke that would have gotten any econ 101 college student expelled from class.

Since the ROI on "direct benefits" didn't come anywhere close to covering the bill, they had to go to "indirect". Now there is nothing wrong with that in itself, if you explain or justify your metrics, which of course they didn't.

For example, why for the trips benefit (who knows where the numbers came from related to cost), why did they spread it over 250 work days, when there are 260? Even factoring in national holidays doesn't get their number right.

Then they blindly assign the value to each and every increased trip of $128 bucks. Where did that come from?

Then they went really far off the reservation and came up with some unsubstiated cost of injury of 296K, and hilariously lumped it all into the "gain" column. Why? Is the cost of every injury on the street directly borne by the district taxpayer?

Again, I don't know who came up with the ROI section, but they can't be older than 6.

[washcycle]

@Chris, the green paint is to further identify the space at space for bikes. There was at one time plans to paint the bike lanes in Thomas Circle blue. My feeling, and this has never been said to me so it is speculation to some extent, is that Jim Sebastian never liked those bike lanes. They were designed before he got here and before there was a bicycle coordinator. So he wasn't interested in doubling down on a bad design by painting the lanes. Again, that's just my interpretation of what happened and should be taken with a grain of salt.

@nookie, DDOT strangely puts actual numbers to all their metrics...except for the supposed increased ridership where they just say "increased by 40%". I suspect it is because it sounds much more impressive than "increased by 92 bikers). All through the DDOT presentation, data is reported in percentages. Raw numbers would be meaningless without the context of percentages. 92 bikers compared to what?

everyone is pretending to be shocked that traffic slowed down.No one is shocked that traffic slowed down. Show me someone who was. That was, after all, part of the point.

DDOT, nor anyone else cared to comment on the massive gross increase of vehicles on the road DDOT did comment on it, just not on the powerpoint presentation. Powerpoint slides are a terribel way to convey information, because they're designed to be used by a speaker, not stand on their own. On this, DDOT reported "Volume counts show that, as predicted, traffic did not divert. In fact, Table 6 shows an increase of 20- 25% in peak hour traffic, and an 8.5% increase in total daily vehicles. This result seems counterintuitive, however this increase may be due to the publicity of the 15th Street cycle track, which also advertised that it was under capacity. Also, this could simply be due to a day-to-day difference in traffic volumes. But needless to say, the cycle track did not have a negative impact on the number of drivers using 15th Street." What more do you think needs to be said about this?

It is pretty disingenuous to just generally say "fewer" cars on the street, when its 39 fewer cars during peak. Slide 10 is confusing. It's fewer compared to how many there would have been without the cycletrack, not compared to last year. This is similar to the claim that the stimulus plan added jobs compared to where we would have been without out, not to where we were in 2008.

Also, I still don't care for your tone. Calling people six-year olds and saying they would have failed econ. Seriously nookie, grow up.

Christopher Ziemann, the Ward 2 Transportation Planner prepared this analysis. Why don't you email him ([email protected]) and ask him for the sources of his information. I'm sure he'll be glad to explain it to you if you can try not to act like a jerk when you ask him.

[nookie]

Washcycle,

Did you even read the link you posted above by TBD's Jemison.

"DDOT spokesman John Lisle says the biggest surprise for him was the reduction in cars driving in excess of 45 miles an hour on the 25 mile-an-hour street. Such speedsters were all but eliminated. "

Pretty bad when DDOT was "surprised" that untiming the lights would slow traffic. In other news, sunscreen prevents sunburn.

92 bikers compared to the 230 a day that was there before. DDOT says 2.3% of the daily trips are bikers. 2.3% of DDOT's own 10,000 is 230 bikers a day that "used" to use 15th. Now they say it increased by 40%, or by 92 bikers. Again, that would have been far more clear had they just used the actual number, rather than forcing people to research the number and figure it out for themselves, but as I said "40%" sounds far more impressive than 92.

Lastly, no one ever said people wouldn't continue to use 15th, the primary concern, which seems to have been spot on is that removing a lane and untiming the lights would create congestion, lenghening the vehicle commute (11,000 of them) and lastly, to a smaller degree (although I find it hypocritical that bikers tout the environmental benefits in one hand and ignore these in the other) increase the Districts pollution.

I am not sure when people will accept that yes, 300K a people day (half the population of the District) commute into DC for their jobs, and since the public transit system in place does a poor job servicing most of them, that "yes" there is a serious need for vehicle access.

The subjective and unrelenting car hate is purely juvenile.

[Chris]

@WashCycle: I'd hate to sound like a broken record on bike lanes (!), but I feel like maybe they ought to consider getting rid of bike lanes that are ineffective and/or dangerous. The only time I've gotten into trouble in Thomas Circle is when I'm in the bike lane. Then again, doubling-down to make safer isn't such a bad idea, it seems to me.

@Nookie: car hate??

[washcycle]

Chris, I suspect they will. At some point they'll repave Thomas Circle and then they'll probably remove them. I'm don't think there's any evidence they're dangerous, and I wouldn't want to invest any resources in removing them just because they're ineffective. I'm not sure painting them blue would make them any more effective.

[Chris]

...or they can just wait until somebody gets seriously injured as a result of poorly-designed lanes, whichever comes first ...

[washcycle]

@nookie, I guess I missed that quote. But still, one person being surprised is a few short of "everyone." And John Lisle is a spokesman, not DDOT.

I know what the 92 was compared to, I was making the point that saying 92 additional cyclists by itself doesn't tell you anything. If you want to think that they chose the use of percentages to push an agenda, you're free to think that, but you've really offered no proof.

lastly, no one ever said people wouldn't continue to use 15th, the primary concern, which seems to have been spot on is that removing a lane and untiming the lights would create congestion what evidence is there that this has increased congestion? Especially since the road now carries more traffic, not less.

I am not sure when people will accept that yes, 300K a people day commute into DC for their jobs,... that "yes" there is a serious need for vehicle access. Is there a lack of access to the District for cars? Because someone just told me that our road system enables 300,000 people a day to drive to and from the District every day.

This road was overbuilt - as a result there was speeding. So DDOT took the extra space and made it useful, in the form of a cotnraflow bike lane. This allowed for more cars to use the road, at safe speeds while allowing for more cyclists to use it as well. It induced more cycling (and thus less driving). This was good for the environment and traffic congestion.

[Brendan]

Don't feed the trolls.

[washcycle]

Chris, are you saying that you think people at DDOT, within their bike team specifically, don't care about the safety of cyclists; because that's what it sounds like. Do you think that they think these lanes are dangerous, but aren't concerned with fixing them?

If not then you're arguing with their assessment of the situation. I know your opinion, what are your facts?

[Chris]

Yeah, I've got to say I totally agree with WashCycle on this one. Of all of the places to experiment with cycletracks, 15th Street is so obviously, hands-down, the best place to do it. (And that's coming from somebody who thinks the PA Ave lanes are a bad idea and who, generally, doesn't like these kinds of separated facilities for bikes...)

[Chris]

Of course I don't think the people at DDOT don't care about the safety of cyclists! I just know that when accidents happen, that tends to move corrective action along a little faster.

[washcycle]

Well, let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[nookie]

Umm..Washcycle. John Lisle is THE spokesman FOR ddot.

The man is the public face and mouth of the cities transportation agency, who is funding these supposedly "well thought out" initiatives. How is it remotely possible that THE spokeman for the entire agency didn't have a clue that untiming lights would reduce speed?

If its true, then he is no more qualified for the job then the previous employee of a car rental company turned, mayors caterer turned head of DDOT, Gabe Klein.

1. I said 300K people commute into DC everyday, not 300K drivers. Reading comp is key.

2. Do you deny the added commute time and added congestion on 15th? Odd that DDOT wouldn't restudy that now as well (because it would clearly prove my point and look bad for them), but I suggest you take a drive up 15th after work sometime, because it takes significantly longer than it did prior. To the tune of 30-50% longer. Multiply that by thousands of cars a day and...

Considering you continually charge others with uninformed "facts", I think it is hilarious you do the same. There is a enormous difference between being "overbuilt" and "as a result there was speeding" and one has zero to do with the other. Why? Because you could have left the road in its old config and simply "untimed" the lights like they did, and traffic speeds would have reduced, as they did.

You seem to think that spending ~100K dollars to get an additional 92 bikers a day (temperate nice weather days of course) in itself reduced speeding on that road, when in fact it had nothing to do with it at all.

[washcycle]

John Lisle is a PR man, not a traffic engineer.

I said 300K people commute into DC everyday, not 300K drivers. Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your statement of how many people commute into the city was somehow related to the following statement that "there is a serious need for vehicle access." Because if you're saying that a lot of people commute into the city by many different means and that therefore we need to accommodate cars, that doesn't make a lot of sense. I gave you too much credit. It won't happen again.

Do you deny the added commute time and added congestion on 15th? Yes. Or, no more than making people stop speeding would do.

I suggest you take a drive up 15th after work sometime, because it takes significantly longer than it did prior. To the tune of 30-50% longer.
Where did you get those numbers?

You seem to think that spending ~100K dollars to get an additional 92 bikers a day (temperate nice weather days of course) in itself reduced speeding on that road And you seem to think that misstating the facts and the positions of others is a good way to win an argument.

I find it hilarious that you waste so much time here arguing points you can't win, stretching the truth to do it. BTW, where is that study you promised me about the LOS on Pennsylvania Avenue?

[nookie]

Washy...avoid and obfuscate...thats all can do. Hilarious to watch though.

1. 30-50% longer, anecdotal, because ddot hasn't or won't restudy the delays, so they don't have to admit their pre-project assumptions were vastly off.

2. What facts have I misstated?

3. What in gods name are you now talking about, or changing the argument to? How did you get from 15th street to PA avenue, I never mentioned PA avenue above at all. I suggest you step back, take a few breaths and calm down because your delusions are getting the best of you.

Thanks for the entertainment though.

[Fred]

Great trolling!

[Richard Layman]

Bike priority streets ideally are streets where traffic can be much more easily controlled.

I am not a regular rider on 15th Street but I am there enough to know that it is a significantly underutilized street for most of the day, therefore it's perfect for a cycletrack, bike lanes, etc.

And I love cycletracks. There are the one facility that's proven to attract more than men under 40 years of age to biking on the street, because they provide protected lanes.

[washcycle]

Nookie, I don't want to avoid or obfuscate anything, so let me try to answer you head on.

(1) My reference above was to this comment where you asked for proof of excess capacity on Penn Ave and claimed that you had "a 3 year old DDOT study that shows PA Ave LOS at failure. Shall we show our cards? You first, since you seem to have all the answers. Like I said, I won't hold my breath." I presented a study that showed excess capacity, but oddly, you never presented your study. Perhaps because it never existed. Perhaps because you were lying to make your point. All my interactions with you since have been colored by the fact that you're willing to tell bold faced lies to make your point. Until you show me that supposed DDOT study you'll always be a liar in my book.

(2) You claimed that "DDOT strangely puts actual numbers to all their metrics" and that wasn't true.

(3) You claim they untimed the ligths. Do you have a source for this - or is this anecdotal like your 30-50% longer travel time fact? Or maybe you have a DDOT study that you'd like to share that will enlighten us?

(4) You claimed that "everyone is pretending to be shocked that traffic slowed down" but actually you only had one person in mind. And then later you criticise him for being surprised, when earlier you'd said he was pretending. Which is it? Is he stupid for being surprised or is he pretending to be surprised as some sort of nefarious plot. I'm sure that in nookie-world the answer is both.

(5) Then they went really far off the reservation and came up with some unsubstiated cost of injury of 296K, and hilariously lumped it all into the "gain" column. $300,000 for reducing a serious injury to merely property damage is not far off the reservation. Civil cases for serious injuries can easily get into 7 or even 8 figures. Why? Is the cost of every injury on the street directly borne by the district taxpayer? Because DDOT is trying to quantify the value of their safety improvements. If improvements in safety are not to be included in decision making, then DDOT won't be in the business in making things safer, will they? Do you think safety has no value?

(6) You seem to think that DDOT is trying to fool people by saying a 40% increase instead of using the actual numbers (which you get wrong, see below). But the two are identical statements, so what are people to be fooled about? Whatever it is, you saw through it. Is that because you're so much smarter than everyone else?

(7) I find it hypocritical that bikers tout the environmental benefits in one hand and ignore these in the other Where exactly was that done by bikers?

(8)There is a enormous difference between being "overbuilt" and "as a result there was speeding" and one has zero to do with the other. "Dan Burden, of Walkable Communities, Inc., notes that virtually every urban community in the U.S. has four lane roads that are overbuilt -- in a manner that encourages speeding..."

(9)You seem to think that spending ~100K dollars to get an additional 92 bikers a day (temperate nice weather days of course) in itself reduced speeding on that road, when in fact it had nothing to do with it at all. I never said that. [The lane only cost $89,750 by the way, so that is some very generous rounding]. The money is worth the additional cyclists, plus all the other benefits which include, but are not limited to: slower speeds, more options for cyclists, diverting cyclists from the sidewalk, etc...

(10)because ddot hasn't or won't restudy the delays, so they don't have to admit their pre-project assumptions were vastly off. That's a bold charge. Got any evidence?

11. 2.3% of DDOT's own 10,000 is 230 bikers a day that "used" to use 15th. Now they say it increased by 40%, or by 92 bikers. Once again, you're mixing up your numbers. DDOT never claims that there were 230 bikers a day on 15th before the change or that there were only 322 afterward. In fact the count they did - of only eight hours showed 673 cyclists after the change.