From 2015 through 2019, there were more than 1,500 police-reported crashes on the section of Connecticut Avenue with reversible lanes. And though the lane is in operation only 15 percent of the time, 44 percent of those crashes occurred then.
Those stats came up during the July 13th meeting of the Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission. Representatives from DDOT were giving commissioners an update on the Connecticut Avenue reversible lane study, which began last year with the collection of vehicle, pedestrian and bike traffic numbers. And DDOT will be giving another presentation on the data and next steps during the July 21st meeting of ANC 3F.
DDOT has completed its report on the roadway’s existing conditions, and it has come up with four possible concepts, three of which include protected bike lanes. Two concepts would retain one reversible lane. Two would eliminate parking. The next steps include modeling those concepts. That could begin this month.
ANC 3F’s virtual meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21st. Here’s the Zoom link. If you need to call in, 301-715-8592 is a local number you can use. You will be prompted for the meeting ID (958 7856 4871) and password (936357).
Here’s the draft agenda:
AGENDA
1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Approval of Agenda (5 Mins)
Consent Agenda
2. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
Regular Agenda
3. Commissioner Updates and Announcements (10 mins)
4. Committee Reports (Parks and Trails, Streets and Sidewalks, Housing, Grants) (15 mins)
5. Community Forum (20 mins)
6. Connecticut Ave Study Update – Charlotte Ducksworth, Commun-ET (15 mins)
7. Squash Club New Stipulated Liquor License, 4221 Conn Ave – Justin Rose (10 mins)
8. ANC Code of Conduct – (10 mins)
9. Approval of Q3 FY20 Financial Report – (5 mins)
10. Other Business (5 mins)
11. Adjournment
Michael says
Thank you for this update. Connecticut Avenue needs bicycle lane(s)! In the new COVID19 normal world of teleworking and safe distancing bicycle lanes will provide more access to DC residents and offer alternatives to driving and public transportation. Even from the perspective of the old normal, the speeding and aggressive driving during rush-hour was a constant threat to DC residents and pedestrians.
Does this study also consider increasing the pedestrian crossing times? Given we have many seniors in our area, we do need to increase the crossing time to cross Connecticut.Avenue.
Kind Regards,
Michael
FHC says
We have asked DDOT for information on how pedestrians fit into the study and the concept modeling, and hope they will address that at the ANC 3F meeting if not sooner. Even with reversible lanes removed and bike lanes added, that’s still 60 feet of roadway that pedestrians of all ages and abilities have to cross in the allotted time.
Green Eyeshades says
The deck of eleven slides which your link labels “four possible concepts” has a glaring omission. There is not one mention of the SPEED LIMIT.
I hope several people challenge DDOT at the ANC meeting to explain how DDOT plans to REDUCE SPEEDING on the Avenue.
To be sure I searched the PDF for the word “speed” and it found no mentions of speed.
Green Eyeshades says
Here is a little more detail about your lede: your link labeled “existing conditions” is a 75-page PDF report with very useful charts, graphs and maps.
On page 53 (PDF p.59), that report states “A total of 1,507 police-reported crashes occurred during the five-year study period (2015-2019) along the Connecticut Avenue NW study corridor.” Using total numbers, not focusing only on the time when reversible lanes are in effect, there were the following types and numbers of crashes:
Pedestrian…………………………..68
Bicycle…………………………………..10
Disabling Injury………………….21
Non-disabling injury……..422
PDO* …………………………………1,064
*The acronym “PDO” is not defined anywhere in the report.
Of the 21 disabling injury crashes, the report was able to map the approximate location” of 20 of those crashes, and of those 20, nine occurred in our neighborhood from Tilden St. on the south to Nebraska Ave. on the north (p.62, PDF p.68).
Page 65 (PDF p.71) shows that Connecticut Avenue has far greater percentage of crashes during the morning and evening rush hours than any other major arterial road in the District, with a striking graph.
“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.”
Pages 67-69 of the report (PDF pp.73-75) reported on videotaped behavior of drivers, but completely ignored speeding! These are the only types of motor vehicle “violations” studied in the report:
•Loading/Standing Violation
•U-turn Violation
•Red Light Violation
•Right Turn on Red Violation
•Left Turn Violation
The report looked at two other types of driver behavior involving navigation of the reversible lanes, but ignored speeding. (Two types of pedestrian behavior were also recorded.) There were surprisingly few red light violations captured by the study video.
Green Eyeshades says
The eleven-page slide deck (presentation) which is linked in the main post under the label “four possible concepts” also says not a single word about speeding on Connecticut Avenue.
Mark Moran says
Interesting. Thank you for providing this information. I am new to this study and this issue, although I have always thought the reversible lanes were scarily hazardous. It is hardly surprising they are a source of accidents. Several things:
1) What is a “floating bus zone”?
2) I agree that speeding is a factor that should be considered. There are a drivers who use the reversible lanes at high speed, exceptionally hazardous.
3) To the extent that a reversible lane(s) are considered essential and retained, it seems to me that one problem is poor signage. Out-of-towners or people who don’t regularly commute might simply not realize they are driving the wrong direction in the peak period reversible lane. Is over-the-street neon signaling of lane direction possible?
4) Im a biker, I like bike lanes, so I am generally sympathetic to creating bike lanes. I also think that the pandemic is likely to have lasting, long-term effects on commuter traffic. Lots of employers (mine) are discovering that yes, telecommuting gets the job done. Its hard to predict but I think even when we get back to “normal” commuting-to-work patterns will be changed forever.
Mark Moran says
Also……….re: the elimination of parking on Conn Ave. Is this mainly proposed as a necessity stemming from the creation of bike lanes? Eliminating parking, included in a couple of the four proposals, would obviously have “downstream” effects on side streets and residents whose streets are going to get parked up.
Is the parking issue mainly related to the creation of bike lanes? Or to the elimination of the reversible lane? I guess it matters as a factor in weighing the pros and cons of the different proposals. Thanks.
Green Eyeshades says
I recommend reading these eleven slides:
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/Connecticut%20Avenue%20Initial%20Concept%20Alternatives%20Presentation%2006112020%20.pdf
The way I read the slides, there are a total of six possible lanes for traffic as Connecticut Avenue is currently designed and operated. During non-rush periods, the curb lane in each direction allows parking, with a Byzantine array of limitations and restrictions. Adding bike lanes (one on either side or two only on the west side) removes all parking. Adding bike lanes also creates new potential conflicts (buses, cars turning off the Avenue, delivery trucks). But the design ideas for bike lanes show PROTECTED bike lanes, which are good. Adding physical protection for bike riders is essential with the amount of reckless driving and speeding that we see every day.
Mark Moran says
Thank you. I think bike lanes are the way of the future and the reversible lane(s) is a (dangerous) thing of the past. The downside that is serious is how elimination of parking is going to affect side streets. As someone who likes the idea of a bike lane–especially a protected one!!–I think that’s not a small matter. So I think
Mark Moran says
Me again. Does anyone have an idea what the time-line is for making a decision about one of the four “concepts” and acting on it. That is, if the city were to decide to adjust or eliminate the reversible lanes and build a protected bike lane–or to decide to do something else or to do nothing to change the status quo—when are they expected to make this decision and do or not do something?
Michael says
Any bicycle lanes also need separate and distinct traffic control lighting systems. DC should offer tax breaks to encourage citizens to purchase bicycles.