Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[Subcity]

Looks like they're trying to get 10 pounds into a 5-pound bag. Again.

Jack, please keep in mind our agreement re "engineering" by DDOT. I haven't measured it myself, but I don't think there's enough room for 2 bike lanes plus the traffic lanes - even if, as it appears, they plan to rip up everything butt-up to the guard rail.

Also, there's some weird sense of geometry. Maybe a DC bus can fit OK in a 10.5' lane on a straight-away, but not on that curve. And, even if it made sense to redo the lanes so that there's only 1 up the hill for most of the way, where it splits to 2 lanes is much too close to the intersection. Cars turning left can back up much farther than that, as you know, and so would block through traffic heading right/rightward.

It still looks like there's no parking on the north side of Kenyon.

Considering how easy it is for bikes to travel down the hill at speed towards the zoo, this seems like a great location for a shared car/bike lane.

As for the bus stop that is now on Adams Mill heading north/west, before the intersection, I don't see it indicated. How about if it were moved to a spot after the intersection?

Assuming that southbound cars on Adams Mill will have a green light when northbound cars do, the right-turn lane on southbound Adams Mill is so short it's a joke. Cars will back up.

The stop line for southbound Adams Mill-to-Irving is stuck way too far out in order to accommodate the bike lanes plus that right turn lane. While the "left turn" from northbound Adams Mill looks possible, real-world scenario it looks absurdly tight. If a bus is stopped at that light about to head up Irving, northbound cars will have to slow to 5 MPH to slip by.

Perhaps the most amusing part of the drawing is the location of the north/west bound sign indicating which lane is for right/left turns. You know the highway signs that say, "If you lived here, you'd be home already"? Well, by the time you see the lane sign, it's too late. Sometimes it seems road signs are designed for people moving at pedestrian speeds.

Finally (for now), they should extend the lane stripes from Adams Mill to Kenyon, etc., to make clear what straight, left, right mean. Like when you're headed westbound on Calvert in Adams Morgan, headed for that right turn onto Adams Mill. Except for the fact that I know it's a legal turn, it certainly looks illegal as I do it because of the "Do Not Enter" signs from Lanier. With the hyperactive painting of lines in all sorts of unnecessary places, DDOT should have been able to paint that line extension from Calvert to Adams Mill. Ah, engineering.

[jack]

The plans are near final -- word today from DDOT:

We are submitting a copy of the latest Harvard Triangle drawings for your evaluation. The drawings have been minimally modified in order to preserve a large number of trees from being taken down. The design also includes an improved east-side sidewalk with a planting strip, and a lower impact retaining wall.

If you have any comments please submit as soon as possible since this project is on the obligation list for this year.


This will permit the long-sought left turn from westbound Kenyon onto southbound Adams Mill. It also provides bike lanes on Adams Mill Road, both north and south of the Kenyon intersection.

"On the obligation list" -- that sounds very encouraging!

-- Jack

[Subcity]

Jack, thanks for posting, but this is an abomination.

Just for starters: So many times I have driven up Adams Mill from the zoo and there have been 15 cars heading left and 3 heading right. Now, there will be 18 simply "heading". And that's good for us, how?

The engineering is wrong in many, many ways.

As I've noted before, they still show NO PARKING on the north side of Kenyon.

If they can't get that right - i.e., see what is actually there now - how can anyone trust that they even understand the concept of engineering?

It became clear over time that Fenty's policies were designed to phase out cars in DC. Did he intend that? Don't know, but that's how it developed.

Maybe our new Mayor can stop this. I'm certainly going to ask him to.

In the meantime, maybe I should dust off my legal tools and file a lawsuit - ya know, slow things down a bit simply with the hope that sanity might intrude.

[jack]

[Subcity]

Jack, the document you posted shows a single lane coming UP the hill. If you mean "two lanes" as in "one each way", yeh. But currently there are 2 lanes UP the hill and that document shows just 1 lane UP the hill.

Besides, how else do you think they put in 2 EXCLUSIVE bike lanes?

As for parking on the north side of Kenyon, LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT. Do you see any indication of parking there? I don't know if they are eliminating it or if their measurements are off. If the former, they are terrible with policy, and if the latter they are idiots who can't work a tape measure.

Again, LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT. (Yes, I am shouting.)

And WT_ do you mean by, "Anything that decreases automobile traffic is a good thing, for the city, and for automobile drivers, too."? If you have X cars and Y road and then you reduce Y road to Y/2 road, traffic increases.

[jack]

[Subcity]

see below

[Subcity]

Jack, of course, your SOP: You are now throwing in a NEW variable. Who ever said anything about changing the timing of the light for northbound traffic? That may happen, dunno, but it ain't on the drawing that you posted and that drawing was/is the basis for my comments.

Also, the current length of that light for northbound traffic is NOT short, as you assert. Indeed, unless the timing has changed recently, from all 3 directions I think thay have the timing down rather well.

As for your explanation of traffic flow, you are flat-out wrong. A 2-lane road that is 2 lanes at a controlled intersection provides more throughput than a 1-lane road that suddenly divides into 2 lanes at that intersection. This may not be true with electrons, but it is true with cars - especially when the line of waiting cars extends down a hill.

I said the drawings do not show parking on the north side of Kenyon. That parking exists now. I said that somehow the people doing the plans seem to have missed that.

Rather than acknowledge that, how do you respond? "I think there are other factors to consider as well as curbside parking spots. Policy? The policy here is to permit westbound Kenyon drivers to safely make the left onto southbound Adams Mill." That is NOT the point. The point I raised about this has nothing to do with policy; it's about visual acuity.

As the map is drawn they have either eliminated parking on the north side of Kenyon - where, by the way, there is currently a dedicated "handicapped" space - OR they just drew things incorrectly.

But your biggest pile of, let's say, "disingenuousness", was when I said that there's now only 1 lane coming up the hill and you said, no, there are still 2 lanes.

You wrote: "Coming up Adams Mill Road from the zoo, there are still two lanes, just as there are now."

It was abundantly clear that I was referencing the northbound traffic only, and yet you apparently changed that and counted the lanes in both directions.

Currently, there are 3 lanes for motorized vehicles - 1 southbound, 2 northbound. The plan is for 1 southbound, 1 northbound. How is that "just as they are now", as you assert?

Yes, at the TOP of the hill, AT the intersection, the plan shows a split for sending traffic left/straight/right, but COMING UP THE HILL, it's 1 lane only.

Also, I just noticed that this plan shows that cars coming up from the zoo that are headed up Kenyon must get behind cars turning left onto Adams Mill. Currently, the left lane is for Adams Mill traffic only. Based on both the traffic flow and the simple geometry of the drawing, this is one more bit of nonsensical "engineering".

And I am fascinated by the plan for how northbound bikes are supposed to navigate traffic - crossing through the cars, trucks, and buses. If this is a safe thing to do, then why is it necessary to otherwise segregate bike traffic? The answer: It is not necessary to segregate bike traffic. Sure, it's great when there is room for it. But after all, if segregation is necessary for safety, why does the law allow bikes to travel anywhere on the road even when there is a segregated bike lane?

[jack]

[Subcity]

Here's another bit of proof that these drawings are innacurate - which, more importantly, raises serious doubts about the basic abilities of the people in charge to design and implement a good plan. Their observations/measurements are wrong and their math is wrong, and yet we are supposed to believe that this is a good plan and will promote safe and effective traffic flow. Don't think so.

[Subcity]

[Harry]

Subcity- I go through that intersection daily. I've looked at the plans. And I'm not sure I see what it is that has spurred you to spend so much time on this matter. The intersection is WAY over due for an overhaul. People have been dying to turn left from Kenyon to adams mill for ages, and most people make dangerous illegal left turns as it is. The jersey barriers need to go and the sidewalks need improvements. What is your major beef here? Do you really think traffic is going to grind to a halt? I don't. And if it does increase by some minute amount. Who cares? It's for the greater good.

[jack]

[gbenn]

I must agree with Harry. I live on Kenyon, and I can't tell you the joy I will have in my heart when I can turn left onto Adams Mill from westbound Kenyon. I also bike, and I'm excited for the bike lanes. If I have to wait in a longer line of cars on northbound Adams Mill to turn right onto Kenyon, so be it. I can't imagine it's going to be that bad.

[jack]