D.C. needs to get a lot more car friendly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

So you're the reason the lanes are getting narrowed and concrete added to force us to slow down? Thanks, jerk.

[Anonymous]

Love how this thread started with metro sucks and now we’re arguing about bikes. Any ideas on how we could make public transit more ubiquitous and convenient? I think one make is to counter the assumption that people only use it for work. I wish buses still ran on weekends and evenings so I could occasionally visit my friends in the suburbs without it being a full day exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

That is why cutting the speed limit isn’t enough. You need road designs and lane narrowing. This can have the added benefit of giving pedestrians shorter crossings. Or you add bollards at an intersection to harden the turn and slow drivers down and you might have a spot for a bike rack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

That is why cutting the speed limit isn’t enough. You need road designs and lane narrowing. This can have the added benefit of giving pedestrians shorter crossings. Or you add bollards at an intersection to harden the turn and slow drivers down and you might have a spot for a bike rack.

You're far more likely to be murdered in Washington D.C. than die in a traffic accident. 37 people died last year in traffic accidents, out of untold millions of trips. There were more than 200 murders last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

That is why cutting the speed limit isn’t enough. You need road designs and lane narrowing. This can have the added benefit of giving pedestrians shorter crossings. Or you add bollards at an intersection to harden the turn and slow drivers down and you might have a spot for a bike rack.

While I admire the bold vision, I don’t think it will achieve the utopian end state you desire.

[Anonymous]

I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of a lot of cycling people is that there is pent up demand of people who want to bicycle but who don’t because they feel unsafe.

What if people just don’t like riding bicycles? It’s seems like an impossible thing for these pro-bike people to fathom.

One of the most supposedly most successful bike paths in the country is the CCT. Even on its best days of the year it’s a fraction of one lane of average daily traffic volume on any basic arterial road. The other successful bike in the city, the 15th Street cycletrack, on peak days does not even replace 25% of the average daily traffic volume of the one lane that it replaced. Meanwhile, cyclist complain that they feel unsafe because the two way traffic is too narrow and they are lobbying to widen it.

The fact is, even successful bicycle infrastructure is extremely inefficient and wasteful use of public resources in doing the thing that transportation infrastructure is supposed to do, move people around quickly.

Sooner or later smart cities will come to this conclusion too.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at bike lanes in the city. They're empty. People simply aren't using them. We can't dedicate all of our resources to the tiny number of white people who are really into bikes.

Clearly you don't actually live in DC and only know your commute and the immediate area around it. There are some bike corridors that do get a lot of use. Also, it's not just "white people" who bike in DC.

But whatever. Let's apply your own logic of "they aren't used, so the resources should go elsewhere" - the formerly-4-lane L St NW corridor that was lamented earlier in this thread is only that busy for a short period of time during rush hour. So why should we then put all the resources into it when that's not warranted 90% of the time? That's YOUR logic here after all...

The data is online. No one needs to guess. The number of people using bicycles right now is indistinguishable from zero. While it may go back up when the weather improves, it’s a terrible use of public resources.

One goal of devoting public resources to improving bike infrastructure is to make it easier for more people to bike to work, which would... increase the number. Cars driven by individual commuters are also a terrible use of public resources, for reasons other than just the sheer number of people who benefit, which probably should not be the sole determining factor.

But no one is biking to work right now. It’s a bad use of public resources to pay full cost to maintain roads and then force them sit idle for months. The government should prioritize use of public resources to ensure that their utility is maximized. I’m not arguing for cars. I’m arguing against setting aside scarce resources for bicycle lanes which have low capacity rates. Even bad transit serves more people, more efficiently than protected bicycle lanes. You want to save the climate? Even a few thousand people on bicycles isn’t going to do it. Turn protected bicycle lanes into protected transit lanes instead and run trolley buses along the same corridors. It will have a much larger impact.

Me, along with 5 of my coworkers, bike through DC to work daily.

As FYI, the data is public. You and your coworkers are basically the only people biking to work right now. Which is the whole point that setting aside limited public resources for you and your buddies is self-evidently a low utility maximizing use of those limited resources. More transit would be a better utility maximizing use of those resources.

You keep saying that, but what specific data are you referring to? I don't think you actually have a clue what you're saying.

DDOT does not have any current, comprehensive or reliable bicycle traffic count data on their site. Capitol Bikeshare has data, which only covers their own bikes, yet even that shows hundreds of thousands of trips every month even in recent months and Capitol Bikeshare is just a small fraction of bikes. I recall even 5 years ago seeing how Washington DC was in the top 3 cities in the nation for bicycle commuting.

But they do. I appreciate how you use the word “comprehensive” to try and establish a beach head for an argument. No measurement is ever perfect.

However, there are 10 automated bike only counters in DC and another 11 automated bike and pedestrian counters.

Everyone can look at the data because it’s published. Barely anyone is riding bikes right now. This is a very poor and inefficient use of limited public resources.

They only have data for 16 locations and most of them aren't even on some of the busiest bike lanes. That does not even remotely give anything near a solid picture of DC bike traffic. There are huge gaps in their coverage. At 8:30AM this morning on Pennsylvania Ave I saw at least 1 bike for every 2-3 cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

[Anonymous]

NP. Cities should NOT be for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

I disagree! I don’t drive but I don’t mind if it’s a fair option. I just don’t understand practically where the space for more car lanes is supposed to come from, especially if we want options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Cities should NOT be for cars.

I think you mean that medieval villages are not for cars. Cities definitely are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

I disagree! I don’t drive but I don’t mind if it’s a fair option. I just don’t understand practically where the space for more car lanes is supposed to come from, especially if we want options?

That's what they did in the '60s, and '70s - tear down buildings and build freeways through cities, and it does far more harm than good for those cities. We DO NOT need more lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

That is why cutting the speed limit isn’t enough. You need road designs and lane narrowing. This can have the added benefit of giving pedestrians shorter crossings. Or you add bollards at an intersection to harden the turn and slow drivers down and you might have a spot for a bike rack.

While I admire the bold vision, I don’t think it will achieve the utopian end state you desire.

Are you talking about PP's specific road modifications? Because this past year, DC has installed a bunch of bollards at dangerous intersections and I have seen first hand how much safer it makes the road for pedestrians.