Maine Avenue is Combat

[streetsmarts]

@Emm 180729 wrote:

You can also cut across the mall to 4th st SW (which has a bike lane), take it to I street (also has a bike lane), and take that to First street, and take that to Nat’s Park. This is the way I go from work. I street is pretty easy to bike on, and it minimizes the amount of stadium traffic you have to deal with compared to Steve O’s route which has you biking on the sidewalk around the stadium, which can sometimes get dicey.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18299[/ATTACH]

I took this route and it was good, thanks!

[ursus]

@creadinger 179094 wrote:

Goddamn, really!? In no way, does that resemble a road. Wow. So now I’m guessing the next step will be to install bollards to make even more obstacles to weave around, in addition to all the pedestrians…. 😡

There are indeed bollards now.

[ursus]

@ursus 180943 wrote:

There are indeed bollards now.

It seems like everyday, there are more bollards.

[rcannon100]

There are also now signs on the cycletrack that say “yield to pedestrians”

[lordofthemark]

@rcannon100 181504 wrote:

There are also now signs on the cycletrack that say “yield to pedestrians”

I missed those this AM.

My experience is that, Friday evenings apart, its gotten better. I attribute this to A. Retail build out done, so less reasons for peds to avoid the sidewalk and B. Scooters. The E Scooter users love it, and their presence discourages the pedestrians.

[Emm]

@lordofthemark 181506 wrote:

I missed those this AM.

My experience is that, Friday evenings apart, its gotten better. I attribute this to A. Retail build out done, so less reasons for peds to avoid the sidewalk and B. Scooters. The E Scooter users love it, and their presence discourages the pedestrians.

Those signs have been there awhile. It’s a little confusing to have a cycle track with yield to pedestrian signs. It really just reinforces that it’s a giant sidewalk.

They also finally added crosswalk signals across the sidewalk/cycle track at one of the intersections with lights near the fish market. For awhile there were cars who had a green light flying across the cycle track/sidewalk, and unless you knew to look over and across the street for their light, no indication that this was an actual intersection and not just another driveway situation. Only issue is the signals are not where you’d expect them to be, so I still see bikes and peds walking directly in front of cars there without realizing there’s a crosswalk signal to look out for.

[huskerdont]

To avoid the Maine Avenue “cycletrack,” which really in an area like this is just another place for pedestrians to wander through obliviously, we’ve started taking 9th to G to 4th (going to Audi Field). On the way home, we’ve been taking the lane on Maine. I really don’t understand the thought behind a cycletrack in an area like this. Too many businesses, people, and cars cutting across to be anything like safe or expedient. I feel like it was just put there to get bikes out of cars’ way on the road, but it ends at a sidewalk (southbound) anyway so you still have to ride on Maine.

[ursus]

@Emm 181507 wrote:

Those signs have been there awhile. It’s a little confusing to have a cycle track with yield to pedestrian signs. It really just reinforces that it’s a giant sidewalk.

They also finally added crosswalk signals across the sidewalk/cycle track at one of the intersections with lights near the fish market. For awhile there were cars who had a green light flying across the cycle track/sidewalk, and unless you knew to look over and across the street for their light, no indication that this was an actual intersection and not just another driveway situation. Only issue is the signals are not where you’d expect them to be, so I still see bikes and peds walking directly in front of cars there without realizing there’s a crosswalk signal to look out for.

I thought that the signs refer to pedestrians crossing the cycle track, not on the cycle track.

[ursus]

@huskerdont 181508 wrote:

To avoid the Maine Avenue “cycletrack,” which really in an area like this is just another place for pedestrians to wander through obliviously, we’ve started taking 9th to G to 4th (going to Audi Field). On the way home, we’ve been taking the lane on Maine. I really don’t understand the thought behind a cycletrack in an area like this. Too many businesses, people, and cars cutting across to be anything like safe or expedient. I feel like it was just put there to get bikes out of cars’ way on the road, but it ends at a sidewalk (southbound) anyway so you still have to ride on Maine.

I assume that the when Phase 2 is built the cycle track will continue southbound and merge with the existing path south of M and then east at the Titanic Memorial and onto P Street.

4th Street, which you mentioned, south of M is currently a mess due to FIOS installation.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@huskerdont 181508 wrote:

we’ve started taking 9th to G to 4th (going to Audi Field). On the way home, we’ve been taking the lane on Maine.

I do exactly this, but just at the opposite times. Take the lane on Maine leaving the city in the AM and Banneker>9th>G back toward Capitol Hill in the PM…only difference is I cut south on 3rd because it’s an easier left turn to get onto I than 4th is.

[Emm]

@ursus 181509 wrote:

I thought that the signs refer to pedestrians crossing the cycle track, not on the cycle track.

Just because you (wisely) think that’s what it means, doesn’t mean the pedestrians walking around interpret it that way too

[ursus]

@Emm 181513 wrote:

Just because you (wisely) think that’s what it means, doesn’t mean the pedestrians walking around interpret it that way too

True. I don’t expect the pedestrians who can’t decipher the pictures with arrows showing where pedestrians should be and where bikes should be, to be able to read.

[lordofthemark]

@huskerdont 181508 wrote:

To avoid the Maine Avenue “cycletrack,” which really in an area like this is just another place for pedestrians to wander through obliviously, we’ve started taking 9th to G to 4th (going to Audi Field). On the way home, we’ve been taking the lane on Maine. I really don’t understand the thought behind a cycletrack in an area like this. Too many businesses, people, and cars cutting across to be anything like safe or expedient. I feel like it was just put there to get bikes out of cars’ way on the road, but it ends at a sidewalk (southbound) anyway so you still have to ride on Maine.

If there was no “cycletrack” there, riders would be riding on the sidewalk – even through riders, and especially riders to and from the wharf. If it were like plenty of other wide sidewalks in dense parts of DC. At the wharf I never see riders riding in the sidewalk proper, so peds who want to avoid bikes have a place to go (obviously not all peds care about that, which is interesting). Plus there are some through riders who really don’t like riding on Maine. (As I have said before, my own choice depends on a range of different factors – but of late I have been using the PBL almost 100% EB in the AM, and using it probably about 50% westbound in the PM -doing the Case Bridge route as an alternative).

Since I usually go (EB) to 7th to Eye to Navy Yard (as I have since Water Street existed) the fact that it ends at 7th is not a direct issue to me (it is an indirect issue, as the transition at 7th leads westbound peds onto the PBL).

Ursus is correct that the Phase 2 of the Wharf will extend the PBL – that will make is “useful” for a wider range of bike origins/destinations. It will hopefully lead westbound peds to shift to the sidewalk instead of the PBL earlier. But the biggest factor in reducing ped usage of the PBL will be the growth of scooters IMO.

Note, when I said it was improved, I meant only in terms of bike/ped conflict, not the bike/motor vehicle conflicts Emm rightly points out.

[lordofthemark]

I saw why I hadn’t noticed the yield to peds signs – they are absurdly high for cyclist who is actually focused carefully on, well, not hitting pedestrians. They also should explicitly say “yield to pedestrians in crosswalk” and they should be placed closer to where pedestrians cross – which should be, yes, marked crosswalks (actually they should be more like the signs on certain highway exit ramps, except they would work better here, because riders on a PBL are slower than motorists on an exit ramp) All of this can be changed with paint and signs, no reconstruction needed.

Thinking again about the PBL in general, I think it bothers us because it is, as the young people say, a “liminal space”. If it were just a wide sidewalk, I think we would be glad that its not a narrow sidewalk – and would accept that its A. Useful to people arriving and originating there B. To the subset of riders who prefer not to take the lane C. That by being wider it somewhat eases conflicts between sidewalk riders and peds D. That anyone riding there has to be wary of both peds, and traffic emerging from garages/side streets.

This “PBL” does all those – except it has better bike/ped separation (and a better surface) than that.

BTW, speaking of wide sidewalks, I think the part near the fish market which is NOT a PBL, is wider and better now than what I remember from before reconstruction.

These days, going EB in the AM, I take the PBL probably close to 100% of the time. Going WB in the PM, I take it probably about 50 to 60% of the time. I find it a satisfactory alternative mostly.

[ursus]

So today, I was returning home going southbound on the protected bike line. There was a mother with a baby carriage who had let her baby (toddler is probably a better description) out of the carriage, and (s)he was sitting calmly in the bike line and playing with something.

[Author]

Posts