Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

Do you have a list/map of FY25+ projects? I was on board with the vast majority of projects in the 20-24 map: https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/FY20%20-%2024%20Proposed%20Protected%20Bikeway%20Map_2-17-22.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

For me, I would build Connecticut Ave before South Dakota Ave, but that is because I live in NW and not NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

I think anyone who has observed how DDOT operates knows by now that the determining factor in selecting routes for bike lanes is their assessment of the strength of the opposition, which is almost always related to how many residential parking spaces will have to be removed. That is, they seem to be - on the whole - selecting streets which are either wide enough to accommodate a bike lane without any loss of parking or travel lanes (e.g., Arizona Ave NW) or where there is no residential parking at all (e.g., Dalecarlia Parkway NW or that silly bike lane in the back lot of Union Market). Sometimes these proposals make sense and sometimes they make very little sense - Dalecarlia being a good case in point. But we can be almost certain about is that DDOT is not planning bike lanes primarily based on how they fit into a network or whether they will be helpful for cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

Not if bike lanes divert commuter traffic and trucks to other, lesser streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

Not if bike lanes divert commuter traffic and trucks to other, lesser streets.

Commuter traffic includes bicycles.

Anyway, why not? Because it's ok for people on bikes to have to use indirect routes (assuming they feel safe biking at all), but it's not ok for car and truck drivers to have to use indirect routes? Because cars and trucks are more dangerous and noisy than bicycles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

Not if bike lanes divert commuter traffic and trucks to other, lesser streets.

Commuter traffic includes bicycles.

Anyway, why not? Because it's ok for people on bikes to have to use indirect routes (assuming they feel safe biking at all), but it's not ok for car and truck drivers to have to use indirect routes? Because cars and trucks are more dangerous and noisy than bicycles?

^^^also, how about drivers who are not commuting? is it ok to divert them to other, lesser (whatever that even means) streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

Not if bike lanes divert commuter traffic and trucks to other, lesser streets.

Commuter traffic includes bicycles.

Anyway, why not? Because it's ok for people on bikes to have to use indirect routes (assuming they feel safe biking at all), but it's not ok for car and truck drivers to have to use indirect routes? Because cars and trucks are more dangerous and noisy than bicycles?

But think of the exercise!

Seriously, it's not about the most direct way for cars and trucks. (The beltway is an efficient way to move traffic but it's generally not the most direct point to point road.). It's about having the heaviest traffic loads stay on the roads that are classified to carry them. Surely it doesn't make sense to divert substantial car and truck traffic to narrower side streets off Connecticut Avenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

Not if bike lanes divert commuter traffic and trucks to other, lesser streets.

Commuter traffic includes bicycles.

Anyway, why not? Because it's ok for people on bikes to have to use indirect routes (assuming they feel safe biking at all), but it's not ok for car and truck drivers to have to use indirect routes? Because cars and trucks are more dangerous and noisy than bicycles?

But think of the exercise!

Seriously, it's not about the most direct way for cars and trucks. (The beltway is an efficient way to move traffic but it's generally not the most direct point to point road.). It's about having the heaviest traffic loads stay on the roads that are classified to carry them. Surely it doesn't make sense to divert substantial car and truck traffic to narrower side streets off Connecticut Avenue?

Yes it is. Look at a map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.