As part of its study of alternatives to Connecticut Avenue’s reversible lanes, DDOT introduced four concepts in June for running through traffic models. The agency now proposes dropping two of the four concepts from its study.
We wrote a detailed article about the concepts and the study area, so to sum up:
- Concept A keeps the reversible lanes, and includes a bike lane on each side of the street with no parking anytime.
- Concept B does away with the reversible lanes, and includes parking on both sides during off-peak hours. There are no bike lanes.
- Concept C does away with the reversible lane, and includes a bike lane on both sides and no parking. This concept could also accommodate floating bus islands and left-turn lanes.
- Concept D keeps the reversible lanes, and includes bike lanes on the west side of the street plus off-peak parking on the east side.
At the October 1st meeting of the the project’s Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which includes ANC commissioners and other neighborhood representatives, DDOT recommended eliminating concepts A and D. Concept A’s “fatal flaw,” said DDOT, included the reversible lanes, the single lane in the off-peak direction and the likelihood that Metrobus would block that lane at stops.
Concept D’s two-way bike lane contributed to its elimination, in part because left turns from the bike lane would create conflicts with pedestrians and other cyclists.
The remaining concepts, B and C, do away with the reversible lane and set up a choice between bike lanes or parking. But DDOT suggested modifying Concept C to include loading and pick-up/drop-off zones to accommodate the needs of businesses.
DDOT’s presentation included projections of cyclist demand, preliminary results of a survey of the businesses along Connecticut Avenue, and an analysis of pre-pandemic motor vehicle trips. (The business survey is still open and DDOT continues to collect responses.)
DDOT projected cyclist demand using existing bikeshare and cyclist counts, and the assumption that cyclists would reroute or add trips with protected bike lanes added to the avenue. The estimates are limited to the peak hours of morning and afternoon rush, so the CAC requested daily ridership projections and DDOT said it would provide that information. In the morning peak hour, DDOT is projecting 158 riders between Legation to Albemarle Streets, 231 between Albemarle and Porter Streets, and 518 between Porter and Calvert Streets. The afternoon peak projections are a bit larger in the Legation-Albemarle and Albemarle-Porter segments and smaller in the Porter-Calvert segment.
Regarding the business survey, DDOT had received only 30 responses when it released the preliminary results at the CAC meeting, and more than half of the respondents were in Cleveland Park. But what was captured from those 30 businesses – especially those in Cleveland Park – is substantial demand for street spaces for order pick-ups and commercial deliveries. In many cases, the businesses reported having no other places, such as alleys, for customers in cars or delivery drivers to park. That’s true of businesses along the east side of Connecticut Avenue at Van Ness. Businesses on the west side between Fessenden and Nebraska also have no alley access for pick-ups and deliveries.
Prior to the pandemic, a large amount of the Connecticut Avenue motor vehicle traffic wasn’t stopping. DDOT analyzed smartphone location data from the first two months of 2020 to determine how many drivers were starting and/or ending trips in the study area, and how many were just passing through. The through traffic accounted for the largest share of the movement on Connecticut Avenue from three origin/destination points: Just north of Military Road (50.6%), between Van Ness and Upton Streets (40.3%), and just south of Calvert Street (38.3%). Around 11 percent of vehicle trips from Van Ness-Upton stayed within the study area. About a quarter of the trips originating from that point were heading elsewhere in the region, and about a quarter of the trips to Van Ness-Upton originated elsewhere.
There is little focus in this study on pedestrians, though an October 2018 survey by the Cleveland Park Business Association demonstrated the importance of pedestrian infrastructure and connections to this commercial area. More than three-quarters of the 973 people interviewed traveled to Cleveland Park by foot, and those who walked visited more stores.
Next steps
In December, the agency uploaded a revised schedule for analysis, reports and meetings.
DDOT planned to complete a more detailed analysis of traffic safety, multi-modal usage and safety by the end of 2020. The first quarter of 2021 is to include more meetings with the CAC and ANCs in the study area (3/4G, 3F and 3C), and a public meeting.
In the second quarter, the plan is to refine the concept, recommend the preferred alternative and hold another public meeting.
Further planning and construction will require budget allocations. The next chapter in the planning process could also capture the impact of the pandemic on the ways we travel up and down Connecticut Avenue and on the needs of businesses along and around the corridor.
The challenge for DDOT and the communities surrounding Connecticut Avenue study area is how to balance all the needs and objectives. At the October 1st CAC meeting, DDOT requested input on balancing “Mobility, access, transit, pick-up, drop off, commuters. Bicycle lanes, pedestrians.” And what will the tradeoffs be? DDOT sought feedback from the Citizen Advisory Committee on the top two priorities from their constituents’ standpoint.
DDOT is still collecting comments from the community at [email protected].
Roberta Carroll says
The need to handle buses and trucks plus all the usual non pandemic traffic would not allow any changes to the lanes. During rush hours the three lanes coming into and going out of the city are needed, Parking is used all the time to get to the businesses, restaurants, etc. Since no new parking is going to be created it serves no one to take parking away. The reverse lane gets traffic in and out of the city efficiently so only time will tell after the pandemic if taking it away will actually cause a huge bottleneck or not. Again no new routes are being created to get traffic in and out of the city so that means existing roads will get more crowded. Where are the logical solutions and not a wish list to pretend we don’t have huge amounts of traffic coming into the city?
Green Eyeshades says
The one decision by DDOT that springs to my attention from the middle of this post is that DDOT is recommending ELIMINATING THE REVERSIBLE LANE, regardless of what else may be done to the Avenue.
BOTH remaining options have NO REVERSIBLE LANE. This is an outstanding result.
It is deeply distressing that DDOT is so obviously leaning against building permanent protected bike lanes. But it is a HUGE victory to see that DDOT is willing to recommend ending the use of the reversible lane.
Without the reversible lane, our Avenue will not be turned into a speedway every morning and evening rush hour. That is just common sense. I am crossing my fingers that common sense prevails.
Paul says
Where it the traffic flow study to forecast the effect that reducing traffic flow capacity on Connecticut avenue will have on other NW streets from the Maryland border on down to Taft bridge? If the amount of traffic does not diminish, but the throughput capacity of Connecticut Avenue is reduced, then the commuter traffic will flow into Chevy Chase, Forest Hills, and Cleveland Park neighborhoods. That very highly probably outcome is intolerable for we who live on Linnean Avenue, any of the cross streets in NW DC, Reno Road, and other ares that will bear the brunt of diverted commuter traffic. No one from the Forest Hills ANC has ever approached residents of this area to gauge our needs and concerns. MPD does almost nothing to police speeders on Forest Hills neighborhood streets.
Roberta Carroll says
I agree with your comment. You cannot wish the traffic away, it will just go to the side streets to get where they are going faster. The lane reversal gives the maximum speed to getting the rush hour traffic in and out of the city. Where are the solutions to moving this traffic?
Cyclingman says
Agreed. Perhaps there is scope for implementing restrictions on cut-through traffic on neighborhood roads during rush hour, as Montgomery County does quite successfully along several of its arteries (e.g., Bradley Road in Bethesda).
Could MPD’s success with portable cameras at stop signs be repurposed to enforce cut-through traffic restrictions during rush hour?
FHC says
Remember that diverted traffic on neighborhood streets and nearby arterials is being modeled as part of this study. We haven’t seen the final results yet. One issue right now is that the vehicle traffic data is largely from before the pandemic. We don’t yet know what commuting patterns will be like post-Covid.
Green Eyeshades says
Concept B shows three lanes outbound and inbound during morning and evening peak hours. Commuter traffic will adapt to the constant availability of the same three lanes in either direction during either rush hour.
But this is why I opined that DDOT is obviously leaning against any option that includes bike lanes, because Concept B has no bike lanes and Concept B is likely the only concept that would at least partially placate the demands for maximum control. of our streetscape by commuters.
Neal Gross says
I am going to protest strongly on any plan that includes “floating bus islands”. I work on 14th St, NW, and last year these were installed and have resulted in increased risk to bus riders who have to cross from the safety of the existing sidewalks across bike lanes with helmetless scooters speeding to reach the “island” where a Metrobus stops. While loading and unloading, it entirely blocks the now reduced lane nearest the curb causing multi-block long backups due to severe reduction in lane availability. In addition, the configuration of these bus “islands” has eliminated virtually all the previously available parking, so the implementation of this plan yields the worst of all outcomes for pedestrians, bikers [who must now be constantly on guard for bus riders], the bus riders themselves, motorists who need parking to patronize businesses, and the businesses themselves who suffer from difficulties for their deliveries, pick-ups, and patrons. Horrible and very expensive waste of taxpayer [oops, you and me] funds.
Gawain Kripke says
I’m a single-interest voter on this matter. I want a protected bike lane. Period. Am concerned that 2 of the options that had a PBL have been eliminated and one without remains. Thank you for your reported and engagement on this issue. It’s such a big opportunity to make our neighborhoods more livable, safer, more ped/bike/kid friendly. I really hope we can make a change.
Judith McManus says
I remember when they tried this in Georgetown on Wisconsin Ave. and the traffic was backed up every morning. Very frustrating when you’re trying to get to work! I had to find a circuitous route through the neighborhoods (which only added a few minutes) to keep going. I kept within the speed limit, but it did seem that drivers were racing from stop sign to stop sign, just to get through. Too bad for such a charming neighborhood. Luckily the city reversed it’s policy and restored the lanes to Wisconsin after some months.
Neal Gross says
Hi, Judith,
great remarks. May I invite you to send your well considered thoughts to our Councilmember:
[email protected]
thanks
Neal
Jane says
It is unwise to make a decision about eliminating lanes at a time when daily commutes are greatly reduced due to COVID.. Eliminating parking on Connecticut Ave will force more cars onto residential streets as well as making life difficult for patrons of commercial establishments to find parking anywhere near their destination. Cyclists can use bike lanes on Tilden St to ride in Rock Creek Park. The projected number of cyclists is no where near the number of cars that use Conn. Ave in normal times and bike lanes would create greater traffic jams.
Neal Gross says
Hi, Jane,
great remarks. May I invite you to send your well considered thoughts to our Councilmember:
[email protected]
thanks
Neal
Roberta Carroll says
Agreed. The number of bikes are no where near the cars that commute into the city.