The DC Department of Transportation is months into a study of Connecticut Avenue’s reversible vehicle lanes. In the current phase, DDOT is using computer models to look at how different lane configurations and usage would impact travel and safety along the 2.7-mile primary study area between Calvert and Legation Streets NW, as well as on feeder streets and on nearby arterials.
DDOT collected bike and pedestrian data in January and February of this year, and used 2018-2019 vehicle data to come up with four concepts to run through its models.
An overview of the concepts
Currently there are six lanes dedicated to motor vehicles, whether moving or parked. During morning and evening rush hours, those parking lanes become travel lanes, and the two center lanes reverse to give southbound traffic four lanes in the morning, and northbound traffic four lanes in the evening.
Concept A
Concept A keeps the reversible rush hour lanes, and adds bike lanes and removes parking on both sides of the street.
Concept B
Concept B is the existing lane configuration without reversible lanes. It is the only concept without bike lanes.
Concept C
Concept C has no reversible lanes and no parking. It adds protected bike lanes and left-turn lanes which could be configured as pedestrian islands instead. DDOT says this concept can accommodate “floating bus islands,” like the one seen on the right side of the Concept C rendering below.
Concept D
Concept D has reversible lanes, bike lanes on the west side of Connecticut Avenue and off-peak parking on the east side.
You can view the four concepts and explanations here. The presentation also includes a table comparing the concepts. And there’s a fifth, no-build concept. DDOT here would consider enhancing the reversible lane signage and signals to make their operations easier to understand. It would also look at lowering the speed limit and increasing enforcement.
Ed Stollof, the DDOT project manager heading up the Connecticut Avenue study, went over the concepts during the July 21st meeting of ANC 3F, and said that the team would spend the next two and a half months evaluating them.
A note about reversible lane signage
A 2011 DDOT study of reversible lanes focusing on Connecticut Avenue points to the lack of overhead signage on the roadway creating the more hazardous conditions. The signs now in used are not adequate, according to the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” a bible for traffic engineers, and should only be used as a supplement to overhead signs or signals.
The study goes on to explain: “Opposition to mast arms restricts the District’s ability to use overhead lane control signs for reversible lanes. Lane control signs are only used in construction projects. The most stringent opposition to mast arms and overhead signs has been the Fine Arts Commission because of its concerns about aesthetics.”
Stollof told Forest Hills Connection that DDOT is in talks with the Fine Arts Commission about the use of overhead reversible lane signage on Connecticut. Without such signage, it is doubtful whether the safety of the reversible lanes could be improved.
The study’s missing elements: Pedestrians, speeding… and the pandemic
The plans for the Connecticut Avenue reversible lane study were first presented to community members and ANCs 3C, 3F and 3/4G in November 2018. The overwhelming feedback was that its scope needed to broadened to include “optimizing” Connecticut Avenue for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorists.
The missing pedestrians
One way to look at this study is a rebalancing of the real estate and management of intersections devoted to cars. The DDOT concepts that add bike lanes are a start. However, the lack of infrastructure improvement focused on pedestrians is a glaring omission. DDOT has heard this from ANCs and from the Pedestrian Advisory Council, which advises the Mayor’s Office and DDOT.
From an engineering standards standpoint, conditions along Connecticut Avenue look good for pedestrians. There are no missing sidewalks. The crosswalks are clearly marked.
However, “We have heard from people that access and the safety conditions play out a little bit differently, especially if you are trying to cross or waiting at a longer signal,” said DDOT’s Cynthia Lin, the deputy project manager who went over current road conditions at the July ANC 3F meeting.
“The extent of the study is really just looking at curb to curb, so we wouldn’t necessarily be changing sidewalk widths,” Lin said. “But we can look at opportunities to increase access and safety within the design of the roadway.”
Pedestrian-friendly roadway design could include medians. DDOT could also move bus stops to signalized intersections. To further protect people crossing the street, pedestrians could be given longer crossing times and shorter wait times. Drivers could be prohibited from making right turns at red lights, and signals could be programmed with “leading pedestrian intervals” to give pedestrians a head start before the traffic lights turn green.
The missing speed stats
Also key to protecting all street users: addressing speeding. At the late 2018 community meetings on the Connecticut Avenue study, people brought up vehicle speeds as a major safety concern. Increasing automated traffic enforcement was mentioned as a remedy.
DDOT’s report on existing conditions did not find evidence of excessive speeds.
ANC 3F Chair Monika Nemeth asked about that at the July 21st meeting. “Upper Connecticut Avenue at times seems like a highway,” she said. Nemeth referenced a DDOT finding that bike usage is highest south of Porter Street, and she observed that higher vehicle speeds – or the perception that there’s speeding – might be a reason there were fewer cyclists counted on Connecticut Avenue north of Porter.
DDOT’s Stollof said the average speed between Calvert and Legation was between 25 and a little more than 30 miles per hour. He acknowledged that the speed data “smoothes things over.”
“What this data is not going to show us is if somebody tries to speed up, say, to beat a light,” Stollof said. “We might want to go out to the corridor and just do an observation to see if there’s people doing non-compliant driving.”
In an email after we published the article, Stollof clarified: “We can go out the corridor and observe if potential red light running/people trying to run a red light is occurring. We can look at ticketing statistics to see the extent to which red light running and/or speeding has been defined as an issue based on current enforcement within the corridor.”
The pandemic changes the calculations
The concepts being studied involve tradeoffs: Less to no parking vs. protected bike lanes. No reversible lane for increased safety vs. lower vehicle throughput at intersections. They also involve data collected before the pandemic.
Car usage on Connecticut Avenue might be permanently changed by telework and by a mode share shift to bicycles. In a phone conversation, DDOT’s Stollof said he recognizes this. He emailed this research by Kittelson and Associates, which spent two months surveying 1,000 U.S. commuters about working from home. Nearly half (46%) of those responding would like to continue to telework two to three times per week, and 14% said they want to do it all the time. Their employers seemed supportive, too, with three quarters willing to accommodate telework.
When they do travel to their workplaces, almost a quarter of respondents said they plan to change their mode of transportation. That meant more car, bike and walking trips and less transit use.
Next to the Silicon Valley, the DC metropolitan area has the highest share of jobs that can be done at home.
Around the Washington area, DCist reports traffic volumes have returned to at least 90 percent of their pre-pandemic levels, but with substantial changes in the distribution of the traffic. In Virginia, where traffic is nearly back to normal, there is hardly any congestion during the previous morning peak hours, 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
The Connecticut Avenue reversible lanes have not been operating during the District’s Covid-19 state of emergency. Will we need them if working from home continues to be part of this new normal?
DDOT’s current budget for this project does not allow for more data collection during this phase, but in our phone conversation, Stollof told me that DDOT could analyze could look at potential decreases in traffic based on mode share shifts to bicycles and other non-vehicle modes.
The study’s next steps – and ours
DDOT is currently analyzing the concepts and is continuing its public engagement process and interagency meetings. That includes contacting businesses to determine their loading and parking needs. This fall, DDOT is planning a public workshop. It will then recommend a concept and come up with a preliminary design. Environmental documentation based on the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process is projected to begin in January and be completed by the end of June 2021.
In the meantime, Connecticut Avenue will continue to operate without reversible lanes. Stollof explained the lanes’ operation will be reinstated only when rush hour congestion on Connecticut Avenue warrants the change, and that ANCs would be notified before any action would be taken.
We do not have to wait for the completion of this study to deal with speeding on Connecticut Avenue. ANCs can engage the DDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Division about lowering speeds through traffic light timing and adding automated red and green light cameras to ticket for speeding.
Charlie says
Several thoughts:
Didn’t 16th Street NW successfully get rid of reversible lanes about 20-25 years ago? If they can do it, we can do it here on Connecticut Avenue. Other major arteries like Wisconsin Avenue, Georgia Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and New York Avenue have survived without ever having reversible lanes.
Why do we need parking on Connecticut Avenue — ever? There are plenty of side streets with parking. The Avenue would work better with no parking anytime for the entire three miles from Calvert Street to Chevy Chase Circle (and, yes, I know I included the Chevy Chase business district in that description.)
How will these concepts handle delivery vehicles? Emergency vehicles? Taxis? All three of these vehicle types will stop in front of stores and apartment buildings during rush hours, making any single lane concept unworkable.
There is no point to having left turn signals at intersections unless there is a dedicated left turn lane. Otherwise, the situation frequently arises where the left turn arrow comes on, but the first car in the lane wants to go straight, and the people wanting to turn left are unable to do so, despite the arrow., (The worst such intersection is Van Ness Street, but Porter Street can be bad at times other than the morning rush hour,.) And why are left turns ever permitted onto Nebraska Avenue? If folk can deal with the prohibition on left turns during the morning and evening rush hours, then they can apply their same workarounds at other times of the day and week.
The statistics about average speed are a joke. All of us who live along Connecticut Avenue between Albemarle and Fessenden know that speeds often reach 45mph during rush hours. Enforcement has been lax for the last 20 years.
Sidewalks are good overall, but there is one section, from Albemarle to Davenport, where the sidewalks are significantly narrower than they are along the rest of Connecticut Avenue. This has been a minor problem for a long time, but it has become a major problem with the social distancing required by COVID-19. Can’t the sidewalks be widened along these five blocks?
infinitebuffalo says
16th St NW has reversible lanes only in Columbia Heights, between Irving St and Arkansas Ave. North of Arkansas Ave NW, 16th has a median.
There was some hope that with the transfer of the Automatic Traffic Enforcement program to DDOT, more cameras would be coming, but there’s no indication at this point that that they will. At any rate, given the lack of reciprocity with other jurisdictions, non-DC drivers effectively don’t have to pay ATE tickets (trying to fix this is in the Vision Zero bill currently in Council, but if Maryland refuses….).
Rather than re-involving police in traffic enforcement, we should be re-engineering roads like Connecticut to prevent dangerous speeding. Narrowing the road and removing drive lanes is certainly a start…
Roberta Carroll says
If you want a bike path north to south then build it through Rock Creek Park where it will be healthier for the biker. Next to heavy car traffic is not the place for bike lanes.
This is not the time to do a traffic survey. Until this virus is over and we see how many people return to their offices and what the rush hour looks like you cannot assess the need for traffic lanes
Parking on Conn. Ave. is needed for the businesses and the apt. bldgs. that were built before any parking was required and many do not have any parking. These spaces on Conn. are in constant use for a reason so do not eliminate them as there is no where for those cars to go.
The real problem is the suburban drivers that use this route out to Maryland and if you close down the driving lanes then traffic doubles and moves slower. When traffic crawls along the pollution goes up as many cars sit at red lights and are in stop and go traffic. The idea is to move the traffic out to Maryland or out to Virginia and not pretend these cars will just because you want them to.
Now that traffic has been reduced on 16th Street, and Rock Creek Park was not widened where will you put the traffic? There are no other alternatives.
Also the bike traffic has not been counted and does not reach a huge amount. Tired of the build a bike path and they will come. In our hot summers and freezing winters they do not come.
Aldo Kelrast says
There are lots of alternatives to suburban drivers using Beach Drive, 16th Street and Connecticut – the bad choices of people living in Olney should not be a burden for those of us in DC.
The idea should not be to move as many cars as possible – the idea should be that Connecticut Avenue is a street that serves many purposes and users. It should be a pleasant and safe street to walk and live on and it should also be a street that safely and efficiently moves people walking, biking and taking public transit.
Currently the street is primarily designed to move suburban commuters.
Bike traffic actually has been counted but it is not a relevant metric as you don’t build a bridge based on how many people are swimming across the river it would span.
We know from lots of experience, including in this region and in DC, that when you build high quality safe bike infra biking explodes – in DC with barely any bike infra it is already 5% of daily trips and there is no reason it cannot be much higher.
George Hofmann says
I don’t see why electric mini buses are not part of this conversation. They could start from parking areas at 495 and Conn. Ave, and end downtown. You could have some routes from Chevy Chase to K St. Pickups could be restricted to the parking hub at 495, and for routes from CC to a few buildings above Nebraska. Since pickup and drop spots would be limited, the mini buses could travel in the middle lane, not necessarily in the bus lane.
infinitebuffalo says
I guess I’m not clear why that would be more beneficial than running the L2 and other existing bus routes more/better? Perhaps WMATA could add a skip-stop MetroExtra service like the S9 and 79 on 16th St and Georgia Ave…
Paul says
I see nothing said here or in the report about studying the effect of reduced flow capacity with Connecticut Avenue on traffic diverting into Forest Hills and other NW DC side streets. In particular Linnean Avenue and Reno Road. Making bicyclists happier on Connecticut Avenue at the expense of increasing the already common speeding on side streets is not a good tradeoff.
ANCs should not be the principal voice on proposals that affect all residents, especially since the local ANC does little of note to reach out to constituents.
Tony Domenico says
Putting bike lanes on Con, Ave is madness. There are perficly good bike lanes in Rock Creek Park,
Aldo Kelrast says
How do bike lanes in Rock Creek Park help people got to and from places along Connecticut Avenue?
Roberta Carroll says
The bike lanes proposed on Conn. Ave. are meant to be bike commuter routes to downtown. These bikers are not shopping on Conn. Ave. or going to a location there. So instead of this Conn. Ave. bike route which I agree is madness put the bikers on a trail through Rock Creek park. There is a trail but it is not open at all times, it is not long enough, it is not as good as it could be for a biker. The Park Service says they are all for biking but have refused to make improvements to this trial.
FHC says
Who said the bike lanes are meant for commuting? What would stop cyclists in bike lanes from stopping at locations along Connecticut?
Aldo Kelrast says
In any case RCP doesn’t connect well to either neighborhoods or most of downtown – a real cycling network will comprehensively connect both.
Steven Seelig says
Cyclists don’t shop at stores on Connecticut Avenue because they rightly fear for their lives. BTW, virtually all cyclists also own cars. Personally, I would prefer to never drive my car if I had a safe route to ride to Cleveland Park. There is not now a safe route, so I never go there. Perhaps this might do the trick for revitalizing the strip there.
RS says
I’m guessing most of the people opposed to the bike lanes on Connecticut Ave are not actually cyclists themselves. Sure, in theory Rock Creek Park is a more scenic place for a weekend bike ride, but for the hundreds of people living in apartment buildings on Connecticut or within the adjacent neighborhoods that already or would prefer to bike to/from work during the week, Rock Creek Park simply does not make sense.
For starters, there are few access points to the park, so cyclists would still need to travel up/down Connecticut to access one of the few E/W streets that provide access to the park, most of which are a significant hill (Tilden… oof). The existing trail is far too narrow and too awkward in many parts to support cycling. It’s also a less direct route. easily doubling commute distance. In order to access most of the central business district, at Calvert cyclists would again have to climb a very steep hill on a narrow path to get back onto the street grid as Rock Creek would dump them out in Georgetown.
I biked to/from work on Connecticut ave for several years prior to the Beach Drive construction project that diverted Maryland Commuters to other routes at which time biking became extremely dangerous and I stopped. It’s evident that more needs to be done to disincentive drivers in DC, especially commuters from Maryland that ruin our streets and don’t pay a cent to fix them. Mandatory tolls should be implemented for MD and VA drivers entering the district. Roads should be designed to support ALL commuters – walk, bike. bus, and driving – and if that means reducing some traffic lanes to allow other means of mobility to have safe, direct, and accessible means to travel, we should support that.
Marchesa says
I agree that DC should be collecting tolls from Maryland and VA commuters. Many other cities do so, including Manhattan.
Lanny Moldauer says
Leave the bike lanes in Rock Creek Park. Otherwise rush hour traffic, which would in any event consist of 98+% of motor vehicle, will become devastating once the covid needs subside. Many, many people even in DC, and certainly much more so coming from MD, are simply physically unable to ride bikes all the way downtown and back. You’d be seeing a handful of bikes, maybe 2% of commuters, plus much more congested traffic for all others, if you take the road down to 3/4 of its current operational rush-hour width, and that’s if we could keep cars and trucks from parking even briefly on Connecticut. For all practical purposes, we cannot and thinking so is a pleasant fantasy.
It’s been working, maybe not quite so well for bikers who choose not to use the obvious path in Rock Creek. I rode up and down Connecticut on some days, for years, and am alive to tell the story. Mostly I did the sensible thing and used RCP. It all worked well enough, and with reversible lanes.
LG says
Tolls as they have in London would be the most effective in reducing suburban traffic. The number of side access streets into the city might make it difficult to get tolls, but It could be well worth it to reduce congestion. I would also like to see DC disallow car registrations in new construction without off-street parking. DC’s projections for car use in new apartment buildings is unrealistically low. What happens like in the case of 5333 Connecticut is that DC projects very few will use cars, and promises that residents can’t get parking permits. But the residents get cars and then flood surrounding blocks with their cars. Blocks that never previously had permits are now full, and residents have to decide if they want to ask for zoned parking, with the attached fees and hassle for visitors, or have all these cars from the apartment buildings in front of their houses. If DC disallowed residents of new multiunit buildings from registering cars at all, the amount of squawking and lobbying from developers would give DDOT and OP a much more accurate projection of demand for cars. The DDOT plans also do not account for delivery trucks which often stop and block lanes.
Green Eyeshades says
I am suspicious of DDOT when it does something like this:
“And there’s a fifth, no-build concept. DDOT here would consider enhancing the reversible lane signage and signals to make their operations easier to understand. It would also look at lowering the speed limit and increasing enforcement.”
When was this “no-build concept” added to the mix? Where is it described in published DDOT documents? Where are the roadway schematics explaining what “no-build” would mean for all the categories of users?
Also, what is DDOT’s definition of “no-build?” Does “no-build” also mean “no-paint,” or “no-new-roadway-stripes?” FHC should try to keep a close eye on this latest curveball.
Green Eyeshades says
Thank you to FHC for reminding us that “We do not have to wait for the completion of this [DDOT] study to deal with speeding on Connecticut Avenue. ANCs can engage the DDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Division about lowering speeds through traffic light timing and adding automated red and green light cameras to ticket for speeding.”
The reference to “traffic light timing” is a link to a technical publication sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. The abstract from those technical experts concludes with these insights:
“Case studies show it is sometimes possible to substantially reduce speeding opportunities with little or no increase in vehicular delay by lowering cycle length, lowering progression speed, dividing an arterial into smaller “coordination zones” with each zone having its own cycle length, and by abandoning coordination altogether.”