Concept C removes the Connecticut Avenue reversible lanes and adds bike lanes. DDOT has refined the concept to include all-day parking on some segments.
ANC 3F plans to take up a resolution at its April meeting on DDOT’s Connecticut Avenue reversible lanes study. And it wants our feedback.
ANC 3F’s Streets and Sidewalks Committee wrote the draft resolution for the commissioners’ consideration, and committee chair Bob Deyling presented it at ANC 3F’s March 16th meeting.
The draft resolution urges DDOT to permanently remove the reversible rush-hour lanes, which have been inactive during the District’s pandemic state of emergency. It also states support for “Build Concept C,” which includes 24-hour parking on one side of the street in the four Connecticut Avenue commercial areas included in DDOT’s study area – and bike lanes throughout. (Watch DDOT’s February presentation on the concepts here.)
The reason: “[The concept] appears to be most consistent with the Guiding Principles of the Safety Study, the overall improvement of the quality of life for persons of all ages who live, work, and recreate along the corridor, and the goals of Vision Zero and Complete Streets principles.”
In addition, the draft resolution notes that DDOT has identified potential safety improvements and “strongly urges” DDOT to implement them as soon as possible. Those include reducing the speed limit on Connecticut from 30 to 25 miles per hour, and installing speed and red light cameras.
“These are possible actions that DDOT has described taking regardless of the outcome of the study,” Deyling said.
DDOT will go in-depth on the latest findings of its Connecticut Avenue reversible lane safety study at virtual public meetings on March 30th and April 1st. ANC 3F chair David Cristeal is encouraging the community to attend one of the DDOT meetings and provide comments to the commissioners before their next meeting on April 20th. (Contact ANC 3F at commissioners@anc3f.com.)
“Hopefully between now and then, people will ask us questions, they’ll go to the DDOT meeting and have more discussion,” Cristeal said.
Paul says
There is absolutely nothing in the proposed ANC resolution that takes into consideration the effect that significantly reducing capacity on Connecticut Avenue will have on neighborhood streets in Chevy Chase, Forest Hills, and Cleveland Park. It is blindingly obvious that when Connecticut Avenue capacity is reduced, that commuters will detour themselves onto Linnean Avenue, Reno Road, and other feeder streets in Forest Hills.
This proposal must be defeated.
Green Eyeshades says
What is obvious is that DDOT engineers and their contractor engineers have already studied the question of traffic diversion and are continuing to study it. They explicitly address that question in their written publications. They have concluded the diversions are manageable.
Roberta Carroll says
I agree with Paul First DC eliminated lane reversal on 16th street and now they want to eliminate it on Conn. Ave. and have not offered a new way for the traffic to come and go into the city. So these frustrated drivers from Gaithersburg and Rockville who cannot bike to work will be driving fast and looking for the side streets to get moving.
Judith Falk says
I agree with Paul. Keep the 4 lanes for rush hour AM and PM with no parking during those hours. Bikers can easily access north/south with their designated areas along Beach Drive during rush hours.
Green Eyeshades says
This news about the ANC’s draft resolution is the second best news I have seen this month, close behind the improvement in DC Health’s pre-registration system for vaccination appointments.
ANC 3F’s draft resolution refers explicitly to the ““guiding principles” of the “the DDOT-led Connecticut Avenue Reversible Lane Operations and Safety Study (‘Safety Study’),” which include “Understanding traffic diversion impacts and mitigating them, where possible.”
Forest Hills Connection posted this update on February 15, just five weeks ago: “DDOT: Potential traffic diversion from Connecticut Ave. bike lanes is manageable.” That Connection post is here:
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-revealing-traffic-analysis-data-from-its-connecticut-avenue-reversible-lane-and-bike-lane-study-at-meetings-this-month/
That Connection story five weeks ago linked to the detailed traffic engineering study of the “diversion” issue which is at pages 28-32 of DDOT’s presentation to ANC 3E on February 11, 2021, at this link:
https://anc3e.org/wp-content/uploads/Conn-Ave-Reversible-Lane-Presentation-to-ANC3E-02-11-2021v3-Updated.pdf
The Connection on Feb. 15, 2021 quoted from the conclusions on page 32 of that Feb. 11, 2021 presentation. The full text of page 32 is as follows:
“Traffic Diversions: Conclusions
“•The impacts of reducing the number of lanes along Connecticut Avenue during the peak hour, peak direction, by either one or two lanes, is manageable.
“•Concept B–When daily diversions are broken down, by peak hours and by parallel routes, Concept B shows a 40-100 vehicle diversion in the peak hours for parallel routes. Diversions would be smaller for roadways connecting to parallel routes.
“•Concept C–When daily diversions are broken down, by peak hours and by parallel routes, Concept C shows a 50-170 vehicle diversion in the peak hours for parallel routes. Diversions would be smaller for roadways connecting to parallel routes.
“•Parallel and collector roadways can accommodate these modest increases in volumes.”
Paul says
The diversion study linked to in a comment above focused on Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Reno, and Broad Branch/Beach. I think it is unrealistic of DDOT to assume that commuters who use Connecticut avenue will self-divert over to Mass and Wisconsin. The study apparently did not take into account the diversions that commuters already take using Nevada and Linnean Avenue.
The study also does not appear to take into account the possible shut down of Broad Branch for 9-12 months for that rebuild project.
I live on Linnean Avenue. When Connecticut Avenue is heavily travelled in normal conditions, between 7:30 and 9:30 AM, a continual stream of commuters speeds through the neighborhood. We have worked with MPD, but they have consistently told residents that it has very little resources to manage the traffic.
So, if DDOT’s report does not adequately take the impact of diversion on existing conditions, we have to conclude that the volume of pass-through traffic will only increase on Nevada, Linnean and off onto 30th and Albemarle. Adding more traffic to those streets due to Connecticut diversion without any mention in the DDOT of a plan to deal with it, is a major concern for residents living on those streets.
Green Eyeshades says
MPD does nothing to “manage the traffic” anywhere in our neighborhood, especially on Connecticut Avenue, so the fact that MPD told you “it has very little resources to manage the traffic” on Linnean just means you are getting the same level of uselessness from MPD as the rest of us.
That is one of the key reasons that roadway re-design is being studied by DDOT, “as part of the District of Columbia’s Vision Zero initiative, which aims to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2024.” (Page 5 of DDOT’s presentation to ANC 3E on February 11, 2021.)
The first two “Guiding Principles” of the DDOT study are “Accommodate the needs of people who live, work, and recreate within the Connecticut Avenue corridor” and “Prioritize the needs of corridor residents/businesses.” (Id., page 6.) Connecticut Avenue is the “primary study area,” and the study is intended to “prioritize” the needs of those who live and operate businesses on the Avenue. (Id., page 7.) Linnean Avenue is not in the “primary study area,” it is in the “secondary study area.” (Id., page 7.)
The “No-Build Management Option” (doing nothing to Connecticut Avenue) has several key defects, including “Does not appear to meet Purpose and Need;” “Does not reduce crashes;” and “Retains the Reversible Lanes.” (Id. page 20.)
The DDOT traffic engineering investigations have concluded that “the number of crashes that occurred during reversible lane hours” — for every hour but one of the ten hours of morning and evening rush hours — exceed the number of crashes during normal operations. See page 54 (PDF page 60) of the June 2020 “CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW REVERSIBLE LANE OPERATIONS AND SAFETY STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT.” Page 55 (PDF page 61) of the “Existing Conditions Report” concluded “In total, approximately 40% of daily traffic volume and 44% of total crashes and 44% injury crashes occur during reversible lane operations.”
Page 63 (PDF page 69) of the “Existing Conditions Report” found, among other statistics, “Figure 43 shows that ten (10) of the sixteen (16) (approximately 63 percent) of the Disabling-Injury crashes that occurred on weekdays took place during the RL [Reversible Lane] hours of operation. Figure 44 shows that twelve (12) of the twenty (20) (60 percent) of the Disabling-Injury crashes are either pedestrian or bicycle-related.”
Page 65 (PDF page 71) of the “Existing Conditions Report” found “As shown in Figure 46, Connecticut Avenue NW experienced a higher proportion of crashes during reversible lane hours than was found for Districtwide principal arterials, during both the AM and PM peak hours when reversible lanes are in effect on Connecticut Avenue NW. The contrast was considerably higher during PM peak hours.”
The engineering data overwhelmingly proves that the reversible lane on Connecticut Avenue must be eliminated, and that bicycle riders and pedestrians require additional protection from disabling-injury crashes. Complaints about secondary study area traffic cannot and do not outweigh those engineering data.
Green Eyeshades says
Washington Post just covered the Connecticut Avenue redesign. Despite the snide term “mixed reviews” in the headline, which is not supported by most “reviews” quoted in the story, the story does fairly well explain the benefits of the re-design. Although the Post did not get comment from our ANC, it did print a very supportive comment from Van Ness Main Street.
” ‘Everyone who lives, works or has a business here knows that people [driving] are going too fast,’ said Gloria Garcia, who lives along Connecticut Avenue and leads the nonprofit Van Ness Main Street, which represents more than 50 businesses in the corridor. ‘We all would like to see Connecticut Avenue change from a highway to something that’s more neighborhoody.’ ”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/connecticut-avenue-bike-lanes/2021/04/09/d2af38f0-9798-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html
The Post’s story also includes what appears to be a new finding from DDOT:
“Ed Stollof, project manager at DDOT, said at a recent public meeting that the bike lane option would provide the most safety improvements and is more in line with the city’s long-term transportation goals, including reducing traffic fatalities under a Vision Zero program. Connecticut Avenue is designated a protected bike lane corridor in the city’s transportation plan.”
[snip]
“The proposal, he said, responds to calls from residents to remove the reversible lanes, improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, and tackle bad driver behaviors. Planners are also recommending dropping the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph.”
Green Eyeshades says
The Post story does include this paraphrase from one of the commissioners on our ANC, but it is not characterized as an official ANC endorsement:
“David Cristeal, a Van Ness neighborhood commissioner, said some businesses are warming to the idea of a bike lane after learning more about the plans. City transportation officials say they will work with businesses block-by-block to establish a parking plan that meets their needs.”
Roberta Carroll says
The business community needs the parking on Conn. Ave. not a bike lane. If the businesses leave then you have empty store fronts in your walkable neighborhood. To expect them all to stay as business diminishes is unrealistic. The bikers will have to stop every couple of blocks for red lights and this quick bike commute will not be available. These bikers are also breathing in too much pollution and would be better off in Rock Creek Park or on side streets where bike paths should be located. The reversible lane has never been clearly marked and works for those of us who have lived here, it is the tourists that cannot figure it out. Conn. Ave. also carries a lot of delivery trucks each day and they will be using the bike lane for delivers. This is a very bad plan for the seniors in Ward 3, those with small children, those who drive their kids to the private schools and those with a disability. This plan is not workable.
Conn Ave Resident/Observer says
Disagree with the proposal — Conn Ave takes pressure off other streets during rush hours, and can handle the traffic better. Recommend that the back streets get designated bike lanes and also, the Rock Creek foot paths be expanded and widened to create a designated bike lane on them. Also, even bike lanes will not keep some cyclists out of the car traffic, since they often use car traffic lanes, as on 15th Street going north, because they too want to go faster.
No reason cyclists can’t continue to use car lanes on regular Conn Ave rush hour traffic and take advantage of timed lights.. .But signage and lines on the roadway should be improved for the reversible lanes…to improve safety – that is a simpler, less disruptive fix.
Also, from an equity standpoint, there are far fewer cyclists than car drivers and bus riders, probably by a factor of 1 to 100 — is it really fair to make such a large change to accommodate the needs of cyclists to the aggravation and delay of some many others, when there are good and equivalent options for cyclists on side streets and in Rock Creek.
Clayton says
I tried commuting by bike on Connecticutt Ave but spent most of my time on the sidewalks to avoid fast, reckless drivers. I gave up. We need to see our neighborhood as part of a paradigm shift that is much larger than this proposal. Should we really be accommodating commuters from the suburbs at the expense of our own safety, environment, and quality of life? European cities have made these difficult decisions, and their center cities are far more habitable. Let’s support the changes.