DC bike group says fewer now riding bikes to work than in 2012 (?!?!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone tell the anti-car zealots at DDOT. They seem to think that if they make traffic terrible enough (ahem, "road diet"), that everyone will switch to bikes. The data make clear that's not happening.

DDOT officials get dressed down here by Black Washingtonians telling them they don't want their bike lanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/15/bike-lanes-road-safety-south-dakota-avenue/

That article is very worth reading. But I also think it's more complicated than what you describe (though yes there is 100% the element of newer, richer, white residents advocating for bike lanes over the objections of longtime black residents, and the point the article makes about many of those residents having fought against things like destroying those neighborhoods to expand I95 is important context that the bike lanes advocates don't always understand).

But some other key takeaways:

-- The bike lanes on South Dakota appear to be less about serving actual demand for bike lanes and more about the fact that bike lanes are the cheapest traffic calming measure DDOT has at their disposal. The real issue in South Dakota appears to be speeding and pedestrian safety, but more expensive traffic calming measures (that have other benefits like making the neighborhood look and feel nicer to be in) aren't in the table. Things like widening sidewalks, installing permanent curb bumpouts at intersections to protect pedestrians, or installing raised medians. Those are expensive, a painted bike lane is cheap.

-- The residents opposing the bike lanes are NOT fans if the speeding and dangerous driving on SD avenue. They hate it. They just don't think bike lanes will solve it-- they think they will increase congestion which will lead to more dangerous driving, and push it into neighboring, residential streets. DDOT has proposed measures to address those concerns but like bike lanes, they are cheap and may not work-- bollards and other temporary installments that may have some impact on speeding and dangerous driving but won't stop it. The article also discussed speed cameras but notes that drivers know where they are and just slow down temporarily and then return to speeding, and that the city struggles to collect fines from out if state drivers.

-- A nearby bike lane proposal in Taylor Street is NOT facing this opposition and actually has the broad support of residents and businesses. That bike lane offers commuting potential for kids to a number if schools and will hook up with the MBT, which businesses think could be a boon for them. Taylor is also not a major through street and has less of a speeding issue than SD Ave. Which makes a bike lane there more appealing-- cyclists don't actually want to ride in painted bike lanes next to speeding traffic! It's dangerous.

So my takeaway is that a major problem with bike lanes in DC is that they are being used as a cheap traffic calming alternative in places where better traffic calming infrastructure is needed, but where there may be minimal demand for bike lanes specifically. If the city instead sought buy in for medians and wider sidewalks and safer pedestrian crossings, they'd face less opposition from residents (out of state drivers would still hate it, but if the goal is to make streets safer, that should not be the primary concern). Bike lanes make sense in places where people already WANT them and where it's already fairly safe to bike. Imposing them on major thoroughfares where there isn't demand in the hope it will slow down drivers and make the road more hospitable to pedestrians and bikes alike us putting the cart before the horse. No wonder you see a lot of arguments over bike lanes if this is their approach.

But if course DC needs money to create safe roads the right way. Different issue. But it dues not appear that painted bike lanes all over the city are the cheap solution they want them to be.

[Anonymous]

Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone tell the anti-car zealots at DDOT. They seem to think that if they make traffic terrible enough (ahem, "road diet"), that everyone will switch to bikes. The data make clear that's not happening.

DDOT officials get dressed down here by Black Washingtonians telling them they don't want their bike lanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/15/bike-lanes-road-safety-south-dakota-avenue/

That article is very worth reading. But I also think it's more complicated than what you describe (though yes there is 100% the element of newer, richer, white residents advocating for bike lanes over the objections of longtime black residents, and the point the article makes about many of those residents having fought against things like destroying those neighborhoods to expand I95 is important context that the bike lanes advocates don't always understand).

But some other key takeaways:

-- The bike lanes on South Dakota appear to be less about serving actual demand for bike lanes and more about the fact that bike lanes are the cheapest traffic calming measure DDOT has at their disposal. The real issue in South Dakota appears to be speeding and pedestrian safety, but more expensive traffic calming measures (that have other benefits like making the neighborhood look and feel nicer to be in) aren't in the table. Things like widening sidewalks, installing permanent curb bumpouts at intersections to protect pedestrians, or installing raised medians. Those are expensive, a painted bike lane is cheap.

-- The residents opposing the bike lanes are NOT fans if the speeding and dangerous driving on SD avenue. They hate it. They just don't think bike lanes will solve it-- they think they will increase congestion which will lead to more dangerous driving, and push it into neighboring, residential streets. DDOT has proposed measures to address those concerns but like bike lanes, they are cheap and may not work-- bollards and other temporary installments that may have some impact on speeding and dangerous driving but won't stop it. The article also discussed speed cameras but notes that drivers know where they are and just slow down temporarily and then return to speeding, and that the city struggles to collect fines from out if state drivers.

-- A nearby bike lane proposal in Taylor Street is NOT facing this opposition and actually has the broad support of residents and businesses. That bike lane offers commuting potential for kids to a number if schools and will hook up with the MBT, which businesses think could be a boon for them. Taylor is also not a major through street and has less of a speeding issue than SD Ave. Which makes a bike lane there more appealing-- cyclists don't actually want to ride in painted bike lanes next to speeding traffic! It's dangerous.

So my takeaway is that a major problem with bike lanes in DC is that they are being used as a cheap traffic calming alternative in places where better traffic calming infrastructure is needed, but where there may be minimal demand for bike lanes specifically. If the city instead sought buy in for medians and wider sidewalks and safer pedestrian crossings, they'd face less opposition from residents (out of state drivers would still hate it, but if the goal is to make streets safer, that should not be the primary concern). Bike lanes make sense in places where people already WANT them and where it's already fairly safe to bike. Imposing them on major thoroughfares where there isn't demand in the hope it will slow down drivers and make the road more hospitable to pedestrians and bikes alike us putting the cart before the horse. No wonder you see a lot of arguments over bike lanes if this is their approach.

But if course DC needs money to create safe roads the right way. Different issue. But it dues not appear that painted bike lanes all over the city are the cheap solution they want them to be.

nimby cranks come in all colors and of course when a black child gets hit by a car on S Dakota Ave they will be up in arms about why traffic in white neighborhoods is less deadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone tell the anti-car zealots at DDOT. They seem to think that if they make traffic terrible enough (ahem, "road diet"), that everyone will switch to bikes. The data make clear that's not happening.

DDOT officials get dressed down here by Black Washingtonians telling them they don't want their bike lanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/15/bike-lanes-road-safety-south-dakota-avenue/

That article is very worth reading. But I also think it's more complicated than what you describe (though yes there is 100% the element of newer, richer, white residents advocating for bike lanes over the objections of longtime black residents, and the point the article makes about many of those residents having fought against things like destroying those neighborhoods to expand I95 is important context that the bike lanes advocates don't always understand).

But some other key takeaways:

-- The bike lanes on South Dakota appear to be less about serving actual demand for bike lanes and more about the fact that bike lanes are the cheapest traffic calming measure DDOT has at their disposal. The real issue in South Dakota appears to be speeding and pedestrian safety, but more expensive traffic calming measures (that have other benefits like making the neighborhood look and feel nicer to be in) aren't in the table. Things like widening sidewalks, installing permanent curb bumpouts at intersections to protect pedestrians, or installing raised medians. Those are expensive, a painted bike lane is cheap.

-- The residents opposing the bike lanes are NOT fans if the speeding and dangerous driving on SD avenue. They hate it. They just don't think bike lanes will solve it-- they think they will increase congestion which will lead to more dangerous driving, and push it into neighboring, residential streets. DDOT has proposed measures to address those concerns but like bike lanes, they are cheap and may not work-- bollards and other temporary installments that may have some impact on speeding and dangerous driving but won't stop it. The article also discussed speed cameras but notes that drivers know where they are and just slow down temporarily and then return to speeding, and that the city struggles to collect fines from out if state drivers.

-- A nearby bike lane proposal in Taylor Street is NOT facing this opposition and actually has the broad support of residents and businesses. That bike lane offers commuting potential for kids to a number if schools and will hook up with the MBT, which businesses think could be a boon for them. Taylor is also not a major through street and has less of a speeding issue than SD Ave. Which makes a bike lane there more appealing-- cyclists don't actually want to ride in painted bike lanes next to speeding traffic! It's dangerous.

So my takeaway is that a major problem with bike lanes in DC is that they are being used as a cheap traffic calming alternative in places where better traffic calming infrastructure is needed, but where there may be minimal demand for bike lanes specifically. If the city instead sought buy in for medians and wider sidewalks and safer pedestrian crossings, they'd face less opposition from residents (out of state drivers would still hate it, but if the goal is to make streets safer, that should not be the primary concern). Bike lanes make sense in places where people already WANT them and where it's already fairly safe to bike. Imposing them on major thoroughfares where there isn't demand in the hope it will slow down drivers and make the road more hospitable to pedestrians and bikes alike us putting the cart before the horse. No wonder you see a lot of arguments over bike lanes if this is their approach.

But if course DC needs money to create safe roads the right way. Different issue. But it dues not appear that painted bike lanes all over the city are the cheap solution they want them to be.

Building connectivity on collector roads really is such a no-brainer. To do a bike lane right on an arterial is a heavy and expensive lift. You could connect 5X as many collector routes for the same cost/effort.

[Anonymous]

Why are we building more bike lanes when the number of people using them is shrinking?

[Anonymous]

so when Feds RTO is enforced soon numbers will go up again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so when Feds RTO is enforced soon numbers will go up again?

You think Susie the Grants Officer who lives in Manasas is going to start biking to work now that she’s forced out of her home office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

VMT is still down in DC proper since the pandemic. Traffic just seems worse because drivers have gotten worse.

[Anonymous]

Jobs have changes, especially in IT since 2012 and many moved out of DC and further out places where you cannot bike or take public transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

VMT is still down in DC proper since the pandemic. Traffic just seems worse because drivers have gotten worse.

says you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone tell the anti-car zealots at DDOT. They seem to think that if they make traffic terrible enough (ahem, "road diet"), that everyone will switch to bikes. The data make clear that's not happening.

DDOT officials get dressed down here by Black Washingtonians telling them they don't want their bike lanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/15/bike-lanes-road-safety-south-dakota-avenue/

Can someone share a gifted link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

a numerator without a denominator? lol.

meanwhile CaBi continues to blast through ridership records (actual objective data). https://www.arlnow.com/2024/10/15/e-bikes-fueling-record-setting-local-ridership-numbers-for-capital-bikeshare/