15th Street bike lanes and measuring the wrong thing.

Last night I cross-posted David Alpert's stories about Jack Evans concerns about the 15th Street bike lanes from the BAC oversight hearing. The hearing is viewable here.

During his opening comments Evans stated (somewhat paraphrased) [10:20]

On 15th street, it's critical we keep the bicycle lanes. But the way we got it set up , it's not working right. I know cyclists are reluctant any observations for fear of losing something. I drive 15th street every day, and the way they got it set up is just a recipe for disaster. The left lane is all left turn lanes so you can't go in them, and then they have those bizarre traffic lights with the little bicycle and whether you can make a left or not and it is so confusing and now you have traffic both ways on that left lane and what was once nearly a six lane road has been narrowed down to two lanes and so we have to look at that and we have to look at a better way to do 15th street and I'm getting a lot complaints, of course, from residents and drivers

He's also confused by the bike light at 15th from Penn. he talks about it again as "not working" because drivers and residents are complaing and it's confusing.

What I wanted to say, but hesitated and missed my chance, is that Evans was making the classic science mistake of measuring the wrong thing. He's looking at complaints from drivers and residents and determining that the 15th street cycletrack is "not working." But reducing driver and resident complaints was not one of the goals of the 15th street cycletrack. The goals were to calm traffic, provide more options for cyclists and increase bicycle trips. In addition there is the implied goal of maintaining or increasing safety.

For Evans to say that it's not working, he needs to show that it is not meeting one of these goals. But, he doesn't. I'm not sure anyone can. DDOT really can't accurately study them until after they've been in for a year so that they can compare data without seasonal effects throwing the numbers off.

All he has is complaints from drivers - who have been slowed down BY DESIGN - and residents (though he never goes in to what the residents complain about, so that's impossible to address). There ar no complaints from cyclists or pedestrians. There is no evidence that the road has become less safe. There is no evidence of increased speeding. There is no evidence that it is decreasing bicycle trips. There is absolutely nothing to support his claim that it is "not working".

That is not to say that we shouldn't address changes as needed. If DDOT detects a trouble spot, if safety declines or if somehow it isn't meeting it's measurable goals, then by all means, let's fix it. But right now it is probably too early to say that it is or is not working. And we'd need more than a few complaints from drivers to make that kind of determination.

Of course, Evans is a politician. Perhaps measuring public sentiment is the exact right thing for him to do (to be re-elected). But the goal of DDOT is not to get Jack Evans re-elected. It should measure the right things.

Comments

[dand]

Good point.

[Jon Renaut]

The goals were to calm traffic, provide more options for cyclists and increase bicycle trips. In addition there is the implied goal of maintaining or increasing safety.

That's what I was looking for(http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9451/is-there-really-a-problem-with-the-15th-street-bike-lane/#comment-89950) - goals that can be measured in some objective sense. It seems hard to believe that it has not accomplished these goals. I've gone from zero bike trips per year on 15th to 4-6 a week, and I don't think I've ever been on the cycle tracks alone.

The big question that remains for me is how it's affected car traffic elsewhere. I try to never, ever drive, and mostly succeed, so I can't really measure it, but certainly someone can.

[freewheel]

First, I think Evans deserves credit for saying that the 15th St bike lanes are "critical." I hope that he means they are here to stay, in one form or another. From what I can tell, they are getting plenty of use.

Secondly, I have a question. Why were they set up this way? Was it to preserve parking on the other side of 15th? I don't understand why there can't be 2 bike lanes so that you don't have northbound cyclists riding on the left side of the road. That creates all kinds of safety and engineering problems.

[M]

I'm not at all sympathetic to Evans, except to the extent that I can totally believe that the signage and lights might be confusing to drivers. This is a different issue from drivers being slowed down. Signage and lights in DC are usually pretty terrible, and I'm often confused by them as a pedestrian and biker. There's probably room for improvement.

[Jon Renaut]

@freewheel - I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that once they made the decision to separate the bike lane from the moving traffic by putting it between the curb and the parked cars, they pretty much had to put the two lanes together. I've talked to people at DDOT, and one issue they have to take into account is clearing snow and whatnot. I doubt they have budget to purchase special snow removal tools just for the bike lane, and then transport those tools to 15th Street every time it snows.

@M - the lights should be pretty straightforward for drivers - they have a new left turn arrow. That's it. They don't have to worry about bikes at all if everyone obeys the signals. It is a little confusing for bikes and pedestrians, but I think most reasonable people will figure it out pretty quickly.

[Richard Layman]

The points people make here should be considered in the context of the fact that in the U.S., and especially in DC and the DC region, cycletracks-two way cycletracks are very new and people are unfamiliar with them, not unlike how in most other places people are unfamiliar with roundabouts and traffic circles, while they aren't here. Even newcomers get accustomed to traffic circles after awhile.

WRT freewheel's comment, like you I thought that cycletracks should be unidirectional, but the Dutch argue pretty forcefully that cyclists will ride in both directions regardless, so therefore design bi-directionality in from the outset.

My experience observing rider behavior in the previously unidirectional contraflow 15th st. cycletrack confirmed the Dutch thinking.

I guess I agree with them, but the unintended consequence is that it makes it more expensive to install because of the special treatments and signals required at intersections, plus the additional level of confusion for drivers is unfortunate as well.

[freewheel]

@Jon - unfortunately it's also a place for DDOT to dump snow

@Richard - I think ultimately success will be judged based on how much bike traffic there is on cycletracks. As long as there are no major incidents, the benefits would outweigh costs.

[Rick Servoss]

Are there any bikers out there who find the contra-flow portion of this bike lane relatively useless? The traffic lights are not timed for contra-flow and so south bound bikers end up hitting nearly every single light...Also, the signs allowing street parking between L and M streets have not been removed. Cars park legally (albeit skillfully) by maneuvering through the bike barriers between these streets.