« Mountain Biking School | Main | Naked ride coverage »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I rarely agree with Jim Graham, but this is one matter with which I'm pretty much in full agreement. I suppose I wouldn't use the word "devil," but with my regular commute (either 13th or 14th Street), I experience Maryland drivers daily. Sure, some DC drivers are poor actors along my route but the Marylanders are, by far, the worse.

Having said that, I'm not sure about the strategy of reducing violations by creating congestion, but that's another question altogether.

I agree with Jim Graham, but would add that all metro-area commuters are the devil. Virginia drivers treat the 30-mph Maryland road I live on like a 45-mph highway.

Regarding 15th St, I think reverting it to 2-way traffic is an excellent idea that should be adopted on other local roads, including Woodmont Ave in Bethesda.

I can't say I like the bike lane implementation on Alternative 3, though. You are put directly in the door zone.

I'm not sure that Maryland drivers are so much worse, and I'm not sure name calling helps anything in this case.

I agree with Nancy that a 2-way street is better. it could actually reduce congestion.

I've given up on getting bike lanes out of the door zone. DDOT knows of the issue and they do it anyway. Partly, I think, because they get so much pressure to add bike lanes.

I'm perhaps in the minority of livable streets advocates who thinks that 15th street should stay one-way. I certainly wouldn't complain if it became two-way, but I think that some faster n/s routes are a good idea in the city. The lights are timed so that if you are a daredevil, you have to stop. Doing the speed limit (which could be lowered and the lights re-timed) means that you hit the green lights.

I would be in favor, however, of keeping it one way, and taking two lanes for a dedicated separated cycle track, and a dedicated bus lane. Imagine if the 16th street line came north up its own lane on 15th street instead of 16th, with the ability to control the lights? And there was a full separated lane for bikes. And two remaining lanes for cars.

I'm just saying, that there are some really good, innovative ideas we should think about other than just making one-way two way.

Even as a non car-owner, I think there's a place for roads that facilitate a faster route through portions of the city. Not necessarily like a high speed limit, but a street you can get on and know that you won't get stopped at every light and make 10 blocks in stop-and-go fashion. There's a way I think to have it safe and neighborhood-ey while also helping drivers out.

I wrote to Mr. Ziemann stating that I thought option 3 was the best of the four as presented, but that I really like the separated bike lanes in option 2. (I don't think option 2 is the best of the four because there are bikes going in the opposite direction from the one-way traffic, which doesn't provide an easy way for someone biking the "wrong" way on 15th to easily integrate themselves into traffic when they turn off of 15th.) I asked that if it were too late to consider the separated bike lanes for this project that he please consider them for any future redesigns of the roads. I got a quick answer back saying that he appreciated my "comments and thoughtful suggestions" and that he hoped to see me at the meeting.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but certainly better than what I expected.

Most Maryland drivers are the devil. I've been saying that long before I've heard anyone else say it. It feels good to finally hear others say it. I've never seen such reckless drivers before. They treat our streets like a playground. 30 means 30 and blinkers are there for a reason! Oh and don't get me started on them not yielding to pedestrians.

Heck I don't even like driving in Maryland because of them. Thank god there is a Target in DC now. The more I don't have to drive there the happier I am.

I'm not saying DC and VA drivers are perfect by any means. I've seen my share of crappy DC and VA drivers, but I'll be damned if a huge majority of them aren't a heck of a lot better.

I'm not sure why it matters that a Councilmember from DC calls Maryland drivers the devil. Sure, it's extreme language, but isn't this decision one which belongs to DC and not to Maryland? Who cares whether Marylanders are offended? They certainly don't care that I'm offended by the way they speed through my residential neighborhood, literally stranding little old ladies in crosswalks in their zeal to get home!

I am curious how making 15th Street a two-way street will reduce congestion. I thought the point of doing this was to slow traffic down, essentially, by getting bicyclists in the way and creating congestion. Regardless, that IS certainly the case with 14th Street, and the two-way 13th Street (sans bike lane) is most definitely congested. (Mind you, I don't regard this as a problem...)

As I recall the 1-way 15th street was a downgraded version of the original plan to build an I-95 megahighway through DC. Instead, we got METRO Rail and 1-way streets. These streets are there in order to encourage high-speed driving, which is not something anyone in the city could logically support unless they would rather transform it into another suburb. Two-way traffic is the way to go.

If DC is ever going to bike mode-share rates similar to Copenhagen, etc. we will have to first start building similar quality of bike infrastructure which will make the average old lady feel safe. Safety in numbers outweighs the safe habbits of individuals. This means grade-separated bike paths, as well as a network of bike-only roads throughout the city, developed in symbiosis with low-speed local rail and high-speed inter-city rail. Cars and bikes mix somthing like oil and vinegar. In order to get a high mode-share of bikes they need to get their own space and infrastructure network that replaces that now occupied by cars. This will have to happen soon because the suburban road network can't be maintained on anyting less than cheap oil, and cheap oil is a thing of the past.

IMHO one-way streets in crowded urban areas are far superior to two-way streets. Remember, congestion increases pollution. With two-way streets left turns during rush hour(s) can be frustrating to motorists which creates impatientness, rage and a host of unintended consequences.

I believe that motorists are like horses, if they see you they will not run over you. Unfortunately, there are too many distractions averting motorists attention(cell phones, radios, IPODS, CD players, Blackberrys, news papers, drinking various beverages, road side advertising, looking for parking, talking to passengers and just plain stupidity to name a few).

I seem to remember that 15th street was also deemed underutilized, so, by making it a 2-way street it would serve more traffic. And there was room to spare for cyclists.

Definitely want to keep it one way and get a dedicated cycletrack. There is simply no reason not to have a smooth n/s thoroughfare. I don't own a car, but I frequently use car share and take cabs, and I prefer the opportunity to move smoothly up 15th rather than sit on a congested street like 16th or 14th. By the way, the City's pedestrian safety study shows that 14th and 16th are far more dangerous than 15th. So let's take a lane of traffic (which will decrease the "urban freeway" feel) and get a dedicated cycletrack to start.

I used to live at 15th & Q and dreaded any moment I had to ride on 15th or walk across it. The need of mostly MD commuters to travel 10 blocks a bit quicker during the evening rush hour does not trump the safety and quality of life of the residents of this area (and it is becoming increasingly more residential). Outside of the evening rush hour it becomes a four lane urban freeway with drivers frequently traveling 40-50mph. The intent of the redesign is slow traffic, and changing to two way traffic best achieves this goal.

I also support alternative four. Offering a turn lane for both north and south traveling vehicles will help prevent southbound vehicles from illegally merging into the bike lane to pass left turning vehicles. I'm opposed to the cycletrack, though support them in theory. DDOT's track record of "innovative" facilities is rather poor in my opinion (bus/bike lanes, thomas circle bike lanes, etc.). DDOT has not shown how they will address street crossings, turning vehicles, turning cyclists or how cyclists will enter or exist the cycletrack while traveling south against one way northbound traffic.

Much like the Georgetown study, this relies far too heavily on level of service and traffic counts for automobiles only, and doesn't offer the same analysis for bikes or peds. Also, other than as a traffic calming measure, I'm not sure what bike facilities on this street really offers cyclists. 15th north of Florida does offer a northbound bike lane, but its the worst street to climb up and switches from the right to left side of the street on a blind turn halfway up the hill. Not very well thought out. 14th St. already offers bike lanes for the same stretch, and 13th St is technically the bike route through this part of town. While I don't want to discourage more bike facilities, I do think they should be done with mindset of building a connected network, and I don't see how this fits.

I think Jeff's comments make the most sense of any I've seen here. In my mind, having no facilities for bicycles (such as on 13th Street, which is a road I travel on frequently) is far better then poorly-designed facilities for bicycles which put the cyclist in danger. How long has it been since they re-designed Thomas Circle into the mess they have there now? At the time, I recall contacting the city, and learning of all sorts of innovations they were going to implement to make it better - such as painting the bike lane a different color to make it clearer - all of those innovations have never happened.

13th does have bike lanes, at least on portions of the street.

I would like to get a cycletrack in the city. It is a hell of a lot safer than riding in the doorway zone with people double parked in the bike lane.

Eric- Where are there bike lanes on 13th St??? It is a signed route, but I've never seen a separated bike lane on this street. (Interestingly there is a sign "allowing" the use of the sidewalk for cyclists on this block near Gallatin I believe).

While I understand the rationale on opposing "door zone bike lanes" I still feel they offer a more perceived sense of protection than simply leaving a wider right travel lane. Either way, the responsibility is on the person opening the door to yield to oncoming traffic, and regardless of the striping pattern common sense and proper Bike Ed says to ride outside of the door zone.

Also, I don't believe 14th and 16th street aren't *that* congested. If you factor in having to navigate to either street north of U St., you really don't save that much time. The only real time suck out of any of these is Thomas Circle, but I'd argue less so than any of the other traffic circles in town.

Chris- I'm not arguing against lanes or other facilities on 15th St, I would just prefer that whatever is done better connect to that area's bike network. I think a cycletrack along 16th st. or even New Hampshire at U St. (with dedicated bike-crossing lights) would be much more ueseful. And yes, once upon a time the Thomas Circle bike lanes were supposed to be painted blue, as well as "yield to bikes" signage to be installed if I remember correctly.

Jeff: I'm wrong about 13th. I'm thinking of 11th. From Florida to Spring or Park. On both sides of the street. It isn't perfect, and you lose the lanes south of Florida to R streets.

My point is that we should get a chance to try out the protected cycle track, and that stretch of 15th is a nice place to do so. Of course there will be safety concerns about the implementation of the track, but it can't be substantially less safe than the unprotected lanes.

I think that local residents who are so concerned about safety will be more upset about losing the lane of parking that the proposed cycletrack option entails. Interesting that on street parking is more important than safety. But maybe I'm wrong.

Jeff - I didn't take your comments to mean that you were arguing against bike facilities; rather, I was agreeing with your comments, and then taking it once further with my opinion. Apologies - I didn't mean it to imply anything other then that.

I would say that a cycle track would be kind of cool. The problem I have with a great deal of the planning in DC (and perhaps other places) is that bikes are used as tools to calm traffic and aren't considered in their own regard. Of course, I very much contradict myself on this in that I don't really agree with the notion that separate facilities are necessary....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader