North of the University of Maryland, there's the finest collection of right-turn lanes done wrong in the area. Listed below are some of the errors in bike lane design that cyclists are asked to deal with.
1. The shopping center with REI/MOM's on Rhode Island Ave. has the classic bad lane design - they stripe the right turn lane to the left of the bike lane. The bike lane continues through, creating a right hook trap.
2. Well, that's bad, so how can we fix it? I know, we could make the cyclists turn, too!
East-bound on MD 193 just past Paint Branch Dr, the bike lane ends with a forced right turn onto Metzerott:
Oh, and you'd better merge with traffic halfway through the turn. Fortunately, this is a great route, since it's flat all the way to the "DO NOT ENTER" sign, where Metzerott becomes a one-way road with a narrow bridge. (Though if you make it to the top against traffic, they have a convenient call button just for you!)
3. That's mostly just annoying, and not dangerous like the first. How can we combine the two for the worst of both worlds? Southbound Rhode Island Ave at MD 193 has all the answers:
First they narrow the bike lane and give it a sharp turn to the right, with a lovely culvert to catch you if you turn too fast. Then they have you take a crosswalk placed just before a stop sign, take an immediate left on a narrow sidewalk and use an unmarked crosswalk across a driveway (also before their stop sign). Then you duck under some low branches, to arrive safely at another crosswalk at the short right turn lane from Rhode Island to MD 193:
Here the traffic engineers felt it was just too much for cars to respect crosswalks, so they wrote up a sign which reads "Bikes dismount and use crosswalk." Then they went and installed it facing traffic, not the trail.
So we have two technically difficult sharp turns, hazardous branches, and three intersection crossings. All of this so that traffic won't have to merge with cyclists to make their turn. Not surprisingly, confident cyclists just take the lane:
Post by Ron Alford
I believe the sign says that the bike lane must turn right, not bicyclists.
WTF?...
Posted by: Mark Williams | June 09, 2011 at 07:06 AM
@Mark: It's just like "Right lane must turn right." Bicycles are not prohibited beyond that point, so you can still merge to the left of the right turn lane (45mph speed limit).
Posted by: Ron Alford | June 09, 2011 at 07:13 AM
Ron,
This is very interesting. Not sure whether you have the time, but it would be really helpful to annotate each paragraph with (DPW&T) or (SHA) so that it is clear to whom people should direct their suggestions.
My guess would be
1. DPW&T
2. SHA
3. At first I would guess DPW&T but typically SHA has some involvement when a state highway is crossed.
I also urge you to make two separate "complaints" on the SHA web site for (2) and (3). And explicitly ask in the complaint about the role of SHA when a county road crosses a state highway in the case of 3.
DPW&T has less money to fix anything. That "bike lane" near REI is substandard anyway to my eye? If you get a chance, what is its width and the lane width (south of the right turn lane which is of course wider). Until DPW&T gets a bike-ped coordinator the best option may well be to send specific complaints to Council with copy to DPW&T, asking specifically why it was designed this way against all standards--and mention the county's liability for the substandard bike lanes. DPW&T claims to be really concerned about liability.
I'm unclear whether you are also interested in the separate question of what SHA does with shoulders at intersections. I think that the difficulty of getting bike lanes right has led SHA to reverse the previous polkicy of striping bike lanes about 4-5 years ago, and I am not sure whether that policy will change. But they are interested in figuring out some general approaches for shoulder-based intersections and there will be a meeting in July on that subject that you might attend if that issue is one of your issues. (I've seen more commentaries from you on bike lanes than shoulders so I am not sure of your interest in shoulders.)
Posted by: Jim T | June 09, 2011 at 07:31 AM
PS: If not too late, I also suggest adding a Prince Georges County tag to this article.
Posted by: Jim T | June 09, 2011 at 07:49 AM
All the more reason that CP needs to take ownership of their roads from the County.
Posted by: Bryon | June 09, 2011 at 09:56 AM
@JimT: The bike lane is 40" from inside the paint to the gutter pan, and 57" from inside the paint to the curb.
Thanks for making me weigh down my bike this morning. I think it went from 45 pounds to 45.5 pounds with the tape measure.
Posted by: Ron Alford | June 09, 2011 at 10:27 AM
@Bryon -- can municipalities do that? Greenbelt has a large and well-regarded (I think) public works department. We could handle road maintenance and improvements if we were given a fair share of the state and county funding, probably. Drivers are always complaining about the roads that are maintained by "somebody else", such as the on-off ramps to the BW parkway and beltway. Likewise, it's easy to tell where the city plowing (excellent) ends and the state or county responsibility (mediocre at best) begins when it snows. If we took over all the the roadway maintenance in our city from the state and county, we would probably have a lot more flexibility to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure along the way.
Posted by: Greenbelt | June 09, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Hi Greenbelt,
You DO have a well-regarded DPW, and so does CP. So does Laurel (for whom I'm the Engineer). I've no idea of the history, but the incorporated city of Laurel owns about 99% of its roads and will eventually own 100%. Funding to improve and maintain roadways comes from a city's general fund (i.e. taxes), grants, and roadway-user-funds doled out by the State. Hopefully these will be restored soon, as they are sorely missed (but that is another topic). Bigger cities in PG like Greenbelt, CP, Bowie, and Laurel are better positioned to take over ownership/maintenance of their own roads than, say, Brentwood, for example. I obviously know nothing of other cities' finances, so i don't know if they can afford to or not. I can understand why the County may be hesitant to relinquish some roads (roads cross multiple jurisdictions, so you need some regional cohesion in your road design). Regarding SHA, they will never relinquish ownership to a City. Which is unfortunate, because State roads that run through our town have high numbers of crashes and have the least cohesion with surrounding land uses. That's a tough nut to crack.
Owning our own roads allows quick response to citizen complaints and quick contruction of new and altered roadway infrastructure that might otherwise take years to implement. It's why we went from having nothing bike-related to having a full-fledged bike master plan, sharrows, bike lanes (with appropriate lanes shifts) in about a year and a half. With far more pending on the near-term horizon...
I'd suggest talking to your councilman or mayor - they may have already done a c/b analysis in the past.
Posted by: Bryon | June 09, 2011 at 12:48 PM
College Park Patch has picked up this post:
http://collegepark.patch.com/articles/dc-bike-blog-critical-of-college-park-bike-lanes
Posted by: Greenbelt | June 09, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Assuming they work double time starting tomorrow, when will the roads in CP and PG county be bike friendly, and the built environment beautiful?
Answer: 2100 AD, if that...
that area is a shit hole, is ugly, and is soul crushing to anyone well- educated. theyvegotten exactly what the deserve!!!!
Posted by: michael | June 09, 2011 at 10:35 PM
@michael: Thank you for the encouraging words.
Posted by: Ron Alford | June 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM
@Bryon -- I hope you're communicating all your great ideas and progess to your colleagues in CP and Greenbelt!
Posted by: Greenbelt | June 10, 2011 at 05:19 PM
Is there an email address for PG's DPW&T?
I already got a preliminary response from SHA about the turn lane from MD 193 to Metzerott (recently revised standards, haven't retrofitted everything yet).
Posted by: Ron Alford | June 10, 2011 at 05:28 PM
@michael -- I get the impression that the highway engineers consider northern PG county as an employment area, rather than a residential area. Certainly all their focus on adding more lanes and ramps has been to allow high speed commuters to get in and out, with zero regard to those us who live here, let alone those who live and work here.
Even recent road "improvements" such as Paint Branch parkway from Route 1 to 201, were put in as high-speed multi-lane roads, with minimal regard for pedestrians and zero regard for biking. Complete streets? Not!
Even the traffic signals are timed to help long-distance commuters get on and off the highways and beltway. While local residents just trying to cross the road to get to work or to metro are made to wait in deference to the out-of-towners.
Roads in northern PG are designed mostly to facilitate the high-speed, long-distance commuting needs Howard county residents in my opinion.
Posted by: Greenbelt | June 10, 2011 at 05:45 PM
Well, I enjoyed that article and certainly got my dander up a bit. Generally speaking if it's not in AASHTO nor in NACTO bikeway designs guides I think the planner should be ... well something.
Also note cyclists are required by law to obey regulatory signs (black on white.) I can see why they may want a bike route from here to the trail but to REQUIRE cyclists to use a circuitous route? That's going too far.
Posted by: Barry Childress | June 11, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Suchmaschinenoptimierung
Suchmaschinenoptimierung bzw. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) erscheint im Vermarktens nach einem unverzichtbaren sowie äußerst wirkungsvollen Erfolgsfaktor mutiert. Welche Person durch jenen richtigen Suchbegriffen (Keywords) unter jenen organischen Treffern einer Suchmaschinen platziert erscheint genießt dieses größtmögliche Vertrauen schenken der Käufer. So lässt gegenseitig die Quantität ein qualifizierten Gast gen einer eigenen Website deutlich erhoehen. Erhöhen Sie Ihre bisherigen Platzierungen mittels jene professionelle Suchmaschinenoptimierung.
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>suchmaschinenoptimierung agentur
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>suchmaschinen seo marketing
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>suchmaschine optimieren
Posted by: dattRileadS | July 05, 2011 at 10:35 AM
Suchmaschinenoptimierung
Suchmaschinenoptimierung bzw. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) wird im Marketing zu einem unverzichtbaren und äußerst wirkungsvollen Erfolgsfaktor geworden. Wer inklusive den richtigen Suchbegriffen (Keywords) bei all jenen organischen Treffern der Search engines platziert erscheint genießt dieses größtmögliche Glauben einer Käufer. Sagt lässt sich jene Quantität einer qualifizierten Gast gen ein eigenen Webseite erheblich potenzieren. Erhöhen Sie selbst Ihre bisherigen Platzierungen durch jene professionelle Suchmaschinenoptimierung.
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>professionelles suchmaschinen marketing
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>suchmaschine optimieren
http://biosarosre1984.wordpress.com/>suchmaschinen ranking optimierung
Posted by: dattRileadS | July 05, 2011 at 10:35 AM