Protected bike lanes for I Street SE

In November, DDOT held a public meeting on the I Street SE Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements Project

DDOT has been working on plans to reconfigure I Street SE between New Jersey and South Capitol to better handle the large amount of vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic

I street currently has traditional bike lanes but would get protected bike lanes under this plan. 

From the existing colored bike lanes west of South Capitol, the bike lanes would continue across the intersection as dashed sections with "ride-a-way" light green coating.  On the east side of South Capitol, the eastbound bike lane would transition from lane-adjacent to the curb side behind the parking.

The westbound bike lane would also be protected by parking, but it would emerge from behind the parking about mid-block to allow for the right-turn lane. In both cases a line of flexposts would separate the bike lane from the parking area.

At the intersection with First Street SE, the bike lanes would transition back to the existing, unprotected bike lanes via dashed green lanes in the intersection.

Not sure how that meeting went or where this project currently stands, but it's not listed on the 2018 Bikeways plan, which means it's unlikely to happen until 2019 as I understand it.

 

Comments

[darren]

"right of way" is actually "Ride-A-Way," the brand name of the green pavement epoxy ddot uses.

[Rasputin]

Where does one find the 2018 plan?
I've been curious about the 4th St. NE protected cycle track which I thought was on the schedule for last year - but no movement seems to have been made.

[Sally M]

If that November meeting was held curbside, I was there, and the DDOT guy claimed it was being engineered inexpensively so it could go up quickly. Frustrating is "quickly" means "in more than a year."

[washcycle]

I have a copy I was given at the BAC meeting. So I'd say, go to a BAC meeting. 4th NE is not on the list either.

[Ampersand]

Oh boy, a block and a half of improvements, next to a hellish horrorshow of an intersection (I and NJ and kinda 1st) which DDOT refuses to fix or signalize despite pleas from residents and the ANC. And the eastern terminus is 1st, a bizarrely overwide road with almost literally constant parking/standing in the bike lanes (1st, again) which is apparently beyond the scope of this project and/or too hard to fix. And it's going to take over a year to do this half-assed weak incomplete project?

On my daily bike commute through this neighborhood I take the streets without bad bike infrastructure, and will continue to do so until the above are addressed. It's aggravating to see them taking so long just to put a bandaid on a broken leg.

[darren]

OK, so as the guy who worked on this 'half-assed weak incomplete proejct' when i was at DDOT, i have to ask whether it's actually been confirmed as being pushed off for a year? Or was it just not included on a list, perhaps inadvertently?

[washcycle]

I don't know if it has been pushed off for a year. That was not said. It may be that it just wasn't on the list, or that it is being built by the contractor or something. DDOT didn't send a rep to the last BAC meeting so we couldn't ask about the list. But usually we get that list and it lists everything that COULD happen that year, with the understanding that not all of it WILL. It's rare, in my experience, that bike lanes are installed without being on that list, though it does happen. I'd also say that since they haven't - as far as I know - hired your replacement, it makes a delay seem more likely.

[ed blanksport]

Any chance you could scan and share your bikeway plans copy? thanks!

[washcycle]

yes. But not now.

[Ampersand]

@darren, I apologize for being saltier than necessary. I'm just super aggravated at the incredibly slow pace of small incremental-type projects like this one. According to a Google Maps estimation, there are 5800 linear feet of unprotected bike lane in this neighborhood. After this project is completed, there will be... 1340 feet of protected bike lane and 4460 feet of unprotected bike lane. In the meantime, when I rode in this morning there were seven vehicles parked or idling in the 1st St bike lanes between I and M, and one on I between 2nd and 3rd.

Not to mention the seemingly complete lack of progress on bigger ones like the Eastern Downtown lane and the Maryland Ave road diet that has been discussed since 2011. At least it seems like the C St project might actually happen...

[Rasputin]

Obviously why would DC need to add any more bike lanes, we're a GOLD FREAKING BIKE CITY MAN!
Perhaps is about time to start installing guerilla bike amenities? Those plastic flex posts are pretty cheap...

[washcycle]

I think people are too hung up on the "GOLD" title. It's frustrating and surprising to me that people put so much power in words. I guess this is why everyone thinks "crash not accident" is so important and I think it's a trivial issue.

Anyway, this isn't the Olympics where Gold is the best. Gold is the 3rd best, on a scale where best is still only half as good as the world's best. A better way to think of it is that DC is a level 4 city on a scale that goes at least to level 6, and probably higher.

There are many people who seem upset about the Gold designation, and I just don't get it. Why are you upset about it?

[washcycle]

On this stretch of I street, I believe there is at least one, if not two major construction projects - projects that constrain the roadway. It would be reasonable to expect DDOT to wait until those are done before modifying the road (since there may be utility work in the near future). It may even be that the developers are paying for the work.

I'm frustrated with how slow things are going too, but I'm not sure this is the project to get bent out of shape about since the delay seems to me to be more technical than political (unlike East Downtown and Maryland Avenue).

[Rasputin]

I'm upset about the designation because DC sucks to ride a bike in.
I've now been hit by two cars *on purpose*, with witnesses. Cops came, took statements and then issued no citation because it was "no fault". In one case the lady was literally screaming that she wanted me and all cyclists to be dead. Cops didn't bother.

Enforcement is not only non existent, it's downright malicious.
That's why I'm mad. We shouldn't be handing out "You've made it" awards for this nonsense. Traffic fatalities are going up, and it takes 7 years to get a few stripes of paint on the ground? Come on.

[Ampersand]

Well, if there is indeed a technical delay caused by construction, I'd love to see project engineers then spend the extra time expanding the scope of work to the roads I've mentioned above.

I'm disproportionately bent out of shape about this one because I've personally gone to the meetings and provided in-person input, but while I continue to work and bike here every day, there's still not even a publicly available estimated implementation date. The optimism I had at that first meeting in 2016 has been ground down over time.

[washcycle]

Rasputin, that does suck. I'm sorry.

So you're mad at LAB? You don't think DC has met the criteria for Gold. Or do you think the name "gold" is bad. Or do you feel like their should be no award for any city at this level?

[DE]

I think the name "gold" is bad in that it's misleading. If you have a gold record, you've done pretty damn well for yourself, even if you didn't make platinum. I can think of no context where "gold" means something negative.

[washcycle]

Is it negative though? I mean when Gold came out. In 2003, when LAB started it, there were only like 6 US cities gold or above. Portland debuted at Gold. People thought Portland was hot biscuits in 2003. Our idea of what is "bike friendly" has changed - we've raised out standards. Still, I don't think gold is "negative" it's just not as impressive as it once was. Like getting a high school diploma.

A gold record is a great example. It used to be the pinnacle when introduced in the 1930's along with the silver record. But then everyone started selling that many, so in the 1970's they introduced Platinum. Selling a platinum record was pretty amazing - until the CD came along. And then everyone was making platinum records. A gold record - for someone like GnR - would be a disaster at that time, and no one would even bother to frame a silver record. People were selling multi-platinum records. And then in 1999 they came out with the Diamond record. Similar to LAB's BFC designation.

So, you don't like the name. Ok. Tell LAB. But then just get over it. It's just a name and by any other name it would mean the exact same thing.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

LAB does not have a criterion for quality of enforcement efforts. It has one for frequency of accidents, on which DC ranks pretty well, IIRC. Since DC is relatively strong on many metrics, such as extent of infra, number of riders, etc, and the thing it obviously sucks on (enforcement) is not directly measured, its not surprising that LAB ratings look silly for DC, though they are quite explicable.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

"I'd also say that since they haven't - as far as I know - hired your replacement, it makes a delay seem more likely."

So this is all Alexandria's fault, eh? Sorry.

[DE]

No, I mean gold implies something pretty great and what we have isn't pretty great. It's not bad. It's a bit piecemeal, which would be completely fine if it were not for the utter lawlessness and disregard for safety exhibited by many drivers and the lack of enforcement, which, as ACITPC points out, isn't a criterion.

It's not a matter of getting over it or not. It's only important at all in that it's misleading enough to give many the wrong idea since most people won't dig down that deeply. That's my opinion and I'll stick to it. Your response is a bit puzzling to me, as if you expect everyone to magically agree on everything, but it's your blog and your opinion so whatevs. Getting cyclists to agree on anything would be like herding cats.

[washcycle]

"It's only important at all in that it's misleading enough to give many the wrong idea since most people won't dig down that deeply."

That's a fair criticism and it does create a need among advocates who have to then explain to politicians why we can't spike the football yet.

But...my main issue is that people seem upset that DC is even celebrating this and are snidely commenting about DC being Gold any time there is some issue. Most of those issues existed 8 weeks ago when we were still Silver - another term that implies something pretty great. But no one ran around complaining that we had been named Silver.

And to the extent that a Gold designation will result in complacency, I haven't seen that. I've heard that concern, but it's not what I've seen (though it's perhaps too early to tell).

BTW, I just heard that DDOT will be updating their bike lane list and publishing it to their website soon, so I won't put my version up lest it confuse people.

[I don't expect everyone to agree, and I'm not sure what I said to make you think that, so I can't really respond to that]

[Rasputin]

I'm not upset at any specific people (except of course the homicidal drivers and MPD) about the designation. I'm upset that such a poor infrastructure could be rated 'gold' and that it's cause for celebration.
If I had a teenager I would have a hard time giving them permissions to ride here - and that to me would be a good measure of eligibility for gold.
I used to ride in Portland, back in 2005 or so and it was worlds ahead of where DC is now. We have a lot more cash on hand than Portland, we have flatter terrain, we have a younger populace. We should be able to do as well. There's just no political will for it. So we're decades behind.

Thanks for letting me vent.