Choose bike boulevards over bike lanes around H Street, NE

By Stephen Miller

The 2005 Bicycle Master Plan includes bike lanes on streets parallel to H Street NE, but bike lanes aren't always the best approach. In this neighborhood, bike boulevards would help bicyclists while creating more obvious benefits for all neighborhood residents as well.

Photo by Full-Time Lover on Flickr.

A "bike boulevard" prioritizes cyclists and pedestrians. And it provides motorists slower, more consistent speeds instead of the all-too-familiar race between stop signs and speed humps.

A combination of bike boulevard tools can make our streets safer and quieter. Some of these are familiar to the District, others are new. These strategies include sharrows, bulb-outs, modified speed humps and reorientation of stop signs.

As currently proposed, bike lanes on G and I Streets, NE between 2nd and 13th would be just fine. But DDOT could do even better by creating a neighborhood street that provides traffic calming for residents and road users while also giving a better facility to bicyclists by implementing some of the following treatments.

 

Sharrows on 12th Street NE. Photo by the author.

Sharrows, or shared-lane markings, are currently used on 12th Street NE and New Hampshire Avenue near U Street NW. Sharrows indicate priority and proper placement of cyclists, keeping them out of the door zone and letting drivers know the important role cyclists play on this particular street.

As bicycle planner Mia Birk notes, sharrows are often most appropriate when "the speed differential between cyclists and motorists is either low or zero." Residential streets like G and I fit this situation perfectly.

The primary method of controlling speed on many residential streets has been the stop sign, with four-way stops at nearly every block. In theory, this keeps speeds low, but many drivers will speed between intersections, while both motorists and cyclists will slowly roll through stop signs. This makes the street experience frustrating, and sometimes dangerous.

 

Photo by BikePortland.org on Flickr.

Bike boulevards on G and I would keep road users at a slow but steady pace by removing stop signs for east-west traffic and instead inserting mini-roundabouts at some intersections, so all road users must slowly negotiate the space together.

At intersections without mini-roundabouts, slow-moving east-west traffic would not stop, while north-south traffic would have stop signs. These "partial-stop" intersections, as seen at 5th and R NW, are not uncommon in DC.

There are more treatments that can be used to keep traffic traveling at a slow pace. Speed humps are a common sight throughout DC, but over-reliance has led to noisy and dangerous short-distance speeding by some motorists not unlike the speeding often seen between stop signs.

For a better example, we only have to look to Arlington, where some speed humps include groooves for motor vehicles. Motorists must slow to align their vehicles' wheels with the grooves, but do not experience the cringe-inducing bounce that can sometimes scrape the undercarraige. By riding in the grooves, cyclists can reduce wear and tear on their bikes, as well.

 

Photo by Washington Area Bicyclist Association on Flickr.

In addition to reducing crossing distance for pedestrians, bulb-outs are another feature commonly used to slow vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. While complete curb extensions may be too expensive to be implemented quickly on G and I, DDOT can create bulb-outs with bollards.

Areas near intersections where parking is currently prohibited for visibility reasons can also be converted into bike corrals, which provide bike parking and some protection for pedestrians without reducing visibility for motorists.

DC's first bike corrals were recently installed in Georgetown and Columbia Heights. By serving the traffic calming needs of pedestrians, the parking needs of cyclists and the visibility needs of motorists without removing on-street parking, bike corrals can be a great addition to some neighborhood streets.

 

Photo by BikePortland.org on Flickr.

An important component of a bike boulevard is deterring through motor vehicle traffic. This has been accomplished in other cities by creating refuges in the middle of a cross-street that allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross while prohibiting motor vehicle turns and through movement.

It may be desirable to prevent motorists on G and I from continuing across 8th Street, or to prevent drivers on 8th Street from turning left onto G or I. The effectiveness of this type of prohibition at 8th Street — and whether the sacrifices made by drivers would be worth the reduction in through traffic — can only be determined by study from DDOT in consultation with the neighborhood.

H Street vs. U Street

The current plan for bike lanes along the H Street corridor is similar to how DDOT has managed bike facilities along the U Street NW corridor. Bike lanes are provided not on the major thoroughfare itself but are instead striped on parallel residential streets. Near U Street, T and V streets have bike lanes. In Northeast, lanes are planned not for H Street but on G and I.

The addition of streetcar tracks to H Street makes DDOT's decision to provide altnerate routes for cyclists even more appropriate. While streetcar service will be a major mobility improvement, the introduction of streetcar tracks to H Street poses challenges for cyclists navigating the area. While there are ways to reduce the danger to cyclists, one of the best practices of bike/streetcar planning is the provision of parallel alternate routes for cyclists. G and I streets are an ideal alternative to H Street for bicycle traffic.

So why would a bike boulevard be better for G and I streets NE, while bike lanes are best for T and V streets NW? Although these corridors have some similarities, there are important differences. T Street, especially, functions as a secondary through route from Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan to Bloomingdale and Shaw. As a result, it carries significantly more motor vehicle traffic than G and I, which are cut off by Union Station at 2nd Street NE.

The difference is evident when you think about restricting through and left-turning traffic at major cross streets. Restricting through traffic along T Street at 14th Street, for example, would have a much bigger negative impact than doing so on G or I at 8th Street. Finally, for busier roads like T Street, bike lanes are a better choice because they carve out a space in the road for cyclists that would otherwise be taken by motor vehicles. This isn't the case on quieter, more residential streets.

 

Bike boulevards were first implemented in American cities such as Berkeley and Portland and have become popular additions to their neighborhoods. When surveyed, the majority of residents on a bicycle boulevard in Portland "generally agree...that these low-traffic bikeways have a positive impact on quality of life, home values, sense of community, noise [and] air quality."

Because cyclists are not the only beneficiaries of these traffic-calming interventions, Portland's Bureau of Transportaton broadened the scope of its bike boulevards and rechristened them as Neighborhood Greenways. PBOT has also begun partnering with other city agencies to include features like vegetated stormwater capture areas that double as traffic-calming curb extensions. We've seen some similar work in our area, most recently on the sidewalk in front of the new Casey Trees headquarters in Brookland and by Constitution Square on 1st Street NE. The region's most holistic "green street" is found in Edmonston, Maryland.

Looking ahead

DDOT is interested in implementing this type of facility; the agency is already looking at bicycle boulevards as part of the Rock Creek West II Livability Study.

It's important to remember that not every bike boulevard must include the full complement of treatments. For example, it's not always appropriate to restrict turns and through traffic, and curb extensions or stormwater capture areas could be cost-prohibitive for some projects. But as DDOT's protected bike lane projects have shown, the agency is able to implement cost-effective facilities that have been done at greater cost elsewhere.

The District needs to expand its repertoire of bike facilities to include more than just bike lanes. With the addition of 15th Street's protected bike lane and the Metropolitan Branch Trail, DDOT has strengthened the types and number of facilities that separate cyclists from other road users.

And while not every street should have a bike lane, every street should be a complete street. For quieter residential areas, bike boulevard treatments can be important tools as DC expands its bike network beyond the city's core.

Crossposted from GreaterGreaterWashington

Comments

[jeff]

The streets surrounding H St. are very similar to those with bike lanes surrounding the U St. corridor prior to receiving these treatments. They are mostly short, one way blocks on through streets that can almost facilitate 2 general travel lanes- but not quite. Installing the lanes along these streets (Q, R, V, W streets in particular) eliminated the ambiguity by channelizing cars into one defined lane. The addition of the bike lanes made for safe(r) cycling along these streets. The overall narrowing of the general travel lane and the presence of cyclists has had a tremendous affect in slowing both local and through traffic, with what I assume is no affect on through put (maybe DDOT has the data). I'd dare say aside from bikeshare, it's been DDOT's greatest success for cycling in the city.

As the city grows and the H St. commercial district attracts more people, it's not a leap to assume that areas overall traffic volume will go up (does DDOT have projection data they're sharing?). Through-put on the side streets will be critical to avoid M St. level congestion, and limiting certain turning movements, through-auto access on certain blocks and other key factors that make bicycle boulevards work well intentionally prevent that. Had this been done on the other side of town U, 14th, 16th, Florida and New Hampshire would be parking lots. Well, more so than they are now.

Though I haven't ridden them recently, I would disagree that G and I streets have low to zero differential between auto and bike speeds. While sharrows may intend to show cyclists are present or even cyclist priority, they simply don't slow traffic. Bike lanes on these streets would, and even if not to the extent of allowing bikes and cars to travel at the same speed, would allow for less conflict between the modes.

Bike boulevards should work much better for streets Rock Creek West II study as well as the large swaths of residential areas in Wards 3, 5 and 7. There, these residential street systems are bordered by larger arterial roadways that can handle the additional volume of through traffic that are pushed off the residential streets. These blocks are often longer and to some degree "feel" more residential. Part of what seems to work so well on many of Portland's bicycle boulevards is the character of the streets, from the family styled Subaru wagon's in the driveway to the kids playing in the yard such as on NE 16th.It's almost Mayberry-esque. Streets like SE Ankeny where there is commercial districts both bordering and even on the street don't work nearly as well in my opinion.

Lacking from this discussion is how neither approach fully addresses the needs of cyclists. DDOT has a nasty habit of relegating cyclists to cyclists to periphery streets. Sure, they've created a fairly well connected and fairly well used bike way system through this. With the exception of a mile long stretch of 14th St. DDOT has routinely left out a safe cycling option on commercial corridors. These are the same street that make up the vast majority of the destinations. Non-bike friendly streetcar track design on H St., bike accommodations left out of final K St. transit-way plans and the lack of bike lanes on 18th St redesign. They've installed bike racks, so they know we ride there. We've overwhelmingly spoken up at public meetings and through submitted public comment, yet have been shortchanged. The next commercial corridor to get a facelift will be the real test of the new Complete Streets policy.

[Purple Eagle]

I think promoting use of parallel streets in the H corridor is very important - H will not be a good option for cyclists even when the construction is done.

K Street is a pretty good alternative too, IMO. And I freqently see cyclists on K crossing North Cap (my office has a pretty good view of this intersection).

[washcycle]

The same idea could work for Georgia Ave NW, by making some combination of 5th-9th into bicycle boulevards. Or using Reno Road as a stand in for Conn and Wisc.

[jeff]

What about when I need to go shopping on Georgia Ave?

Isn't Reno Road already part of a bike route? While better than Conn or Wisc, it isn't that pleasant to bike on.

If we're switching topics to missing connections, call me crazy (Jim S. did) but I'd like to see a combination road diet with bike lanes and cycletrack along Military Rd. NW. The city is really missing a good crosstown route that far north. It would also make an easier route for those riding to the Chevy Chase area by riding up 14th and cutting across, as opposed to Conn or Reno.

[Geof Gee]

I saw the Portland video a while back. Generally, I am in favor of slow roads that require driver awareness to navigate. The idea of reducing connectivity for cars while using more devices like roundabouts is appealing to me.

[MB]

FWIW: I"m pretty sure the grooves on the speed humps in Arlington are meant to be solely for emergency vehicles (tho' many folks use them). They're positioned in a way that that requires the user's vehicle to straddle the yellow line (and in at least one place, there's a reminder about the fine for crossing a double yellow).

And speaking of Arlington - we've been looking (for a while, now) at parallel bike boulevards as the primary cycling accommodation for moving east/west along the Columbia Pike corridor. One of the issues that faces - that I don't think troubles the H St. treatment - is that they're not exactly parallel. In fact, it'll take cyclists somewhat out of their way in some instances. I think the utility of bike boulevards depends a great deal on them appearing as only slightly less efficient (distance/time wise) than the route they're trying to replace.

[washcycle]

Jeff, I don't think the parallel bike boulevard precludes the improvement of Georgia Avenue. My thought is that when a road with bad BLOS is parallel to one with good BLOS, it might make sense to first make the good one better. That will draw in people who need that level of service. Making the bad one good (which would be more difficult) doesn't really get you much added. It's the opposite of the weakest link theory.