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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

I’ve been a bike commuter for many of these years and was never surveyed. How can it be that you know the numbers of bike commuters down to single digits without even contacting me?

The truth is that these numbers, used in this fashion, are highly misleading. You are prone to accusing others of lying, but either you are statistically illiterate or being deceptive. Which one is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

I’ve been a bike commuter for many of these years and was never surveyed. How can it be that you know the numbers of bike commuters down to single digits without even contacting me?

The truth is that these numbers, used in this fashion, are highly misleading. You are prone to accusing others of lying, but either you are statistically illiterate or being deceptive. Which one is it?

You’re about as smart as the person saying DC spent billions on bike lanes. Cheers.

[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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

Why do residents of one stretch of road get to dictate how the entire road operates and also that their needs are paramount (ie that their parking is more important than any safety improvements)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean arguing for every form of traffic calming except bike lanes is not really in good faith. The NIMBYs will be out in full force equally when it’s just adding a median and dedicated bus lane and not bike lanes.

I think you are referring to my posts in which I advocate for other traffic calming measures in situations where speeding or pedestrian safety is an issue but a bike lane doesn't really make sense.

Your attitude is infuriating because I don't argue against bike lanes *when they make sense.* The issue is DDOT suggest bike lanes any time a road is a problem and this is one of the reasons there is so much opposition to bike lanes -- because they are often thrust upon neighborhoods where there is little demand for them and where they are rarely used (in part because so many DDOT lanes are just paint on a road or flexible bollards between the lane and traffic on what everyone agrees is already a dangerous road -- who wants to bike on a road like that other than true diehards?). DDOT eliminates traffic lanes as well as residential parking for these bike lanes people didn't ask for and then bike advocate freak out when residents protest them.

If you really want to increase interest in biking, you'd focus bike lanes in areas where there is already a large cycling community and where demand is there. And then on the city's many dangerous roads where drivers regularly speed and drive dangerously (and almost no one bikes), you'd advocate for traffic calming measures that will ACTUALLY slow down drivers and make the road safe for pedestrians. And then guess what? People will want to bike there. But throwing a bike lane on a busy road like SD Ave and doing nothing else to slow drivers will only make people say "why the heck is there a bike lane here that no one uses?" It does not actually accomplish your goals.

Or you could claim that anyone who ever opposes a bike lane is a NIMBY who will also oppose other measures because that makes it easier for you to keep trying to impose your will on other residents of the city instead of actually talking to people and listening to what they have to say (even when it's "I don't want a bike lane on this road").

I don't know who you are or where you live, but I'd vote for you as ANC commissioner in a hot second.

^^naive. at some point you need to listen to the professionals and not the “neighbors” because the “neighbors” who who show up to ANC meetings will ALWAYS claim that changing anything at all = kitten murder. If we listened to the “neighbors” we would have no metro, no parks, no sidewalks, no schools …

How about we listen to the DC fire department that said that the CT Ave bike lanes would INCREASE response time. Do they count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

I’ve been a bike commuter for many of these years and was never surveyed. How can it be that you know the numbers of bike commuters down to single digits without even contacting me?

The truth is that these numbers, used in this fashion, are highly misleading. You are prone to accusing others of lying, but either you are statistically illiterate or being deceptive. Which one is it?

Yeah and what's the deal with these presidential polls where they don't interview every single voter in America? So misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

Kinda bonkers how DC has spent untold billions on bike stuff over the years for such a group of people

DC has probably spent $5 billion over the past decade. The cost per user is astronomical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are scooter riders up? Because I never rode a bike around DC, but the last 3 years I've taken up scootering.

Hard to say. Scooters aren't really an option in any commuting survey. Eventually they will be, but aren't currently. Until then you have provider data and some small scale stuff.

Weird. Whenever I take one downtown for a doctor's appointment, there are tons of scooters in the bike lanes on 15th and L and surrounding areas with what look like commuters.

Yes, lots of people use them in urban areas. But you can't fill out your ACS, or MWCOG survey and mark "scooter" as your primary commute mode. Right now, you have to put "other" and maybe you get a write-in. As more people use them, and more people want to know how many are out there, you'll slowly see surveys make an option for them. In the meantime you just have to use your eyes and memory to say "a heck of a lot more today, than back in 2016."

You mark the box the says "loser"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

The whole point of the infrastructure changes is to replace traffic enforcement. For instance, there is no space left for cops to wait or pull over people after bike lanes, bump outs and bollards

That's the big irony. The cause of the problem and the cheapest solution to it are the same thing. Enforcement. But it is the one thing that isn't on the table.

In typical DC fashion a bad policy decision caused a big problem and rather than just reversing that bad policy decision they keep doubling down on alternatives that don't fix anything and usually make everything worse.

[Anonymous]

This entire mess has been brought to you by whatever dumbassery has been going on between the Council and the MPD but rather than fix that (and admit a mistake) we've been treated to this never ending cycle of buffoonery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

Why do residents of one stretch of road get to dictate how the entire road operates and also that their needs are paramount (ie that their parking is more important than any safety improvements)?

I don't think you should let one small group dictate how a road is used, but I do think that if a road currently has parking that is used by residents who live on the road, it is just bad policy making to take the parking away for a bike lane without even exploring other options. You are advocating for substituting one small group for another instead of working together to come up with something that works for everyone. That doesn't mean "no bike lanes" but it does mean you don't install bike lanes over local objections without weighing pros and cons and considering otehr options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

Why do residents of one stretch of road get to dictate how the entire road operates and also that their needs are paramount (ie that their parking is more important than any safety improvements)?

I don't think you should let one small group dictate how a road is used, but I do think that if a road currently has parking that is used by residents who live on the road, it is just bad policy making to take the parking away for a bike lane without even exploring other options. You are advocating for substituting one small group for another instead of working together to come up with something that works for everyone. That doesn't mean "no bike lanes" but it does mean you don't install bike lanes over local objections without weighing pros and cons and considering otehr options.

The real problem is cities provide highly subsidized parking on what are designed as transportation corridors. This makes it so you can't ever change anything because it's "their" free parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great post, and this pretty well sums up where I am on this issue as well. The only thing really missing here (and elsewhere in this thread) is a push for traffic enforcement, which seems to have dropped completely off the city's radar the past decade or so. Doing any sort of infrastructure changes in the complete absence of any meaningful enforcement (traffic cameras don't count) is futile and just perpetuates the dangerous behavior of a small minority of drivers.

The whole point of the infrastructure changes is to replace traffic enforcement. For instance, there is no space left for cops to wait or pull over people after bike lanes, bump outs and bollards

That's the big irony. The cause of the problem and the cheapest solution to it are the same thing. Enforcement. But it is the one thing that isn't on the table.

In typical DC fashion a bad policy decision caused a big problem and rather than just reversing that bad policy decision they keep doubling down on alternatives that don't fix anything and usually make everything worse.

The story of the DC government in a nutshell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

If anything, these numbers are inflated because they're asking respondents whether they commuted to work by bike. People exaggerate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting the number of bike commuters was plummeting even before the pandemic.

It's interesting that you are completely and totally obsessed with proving that things that never happened actually happened. Please desist with your nonsense. It is tiresome.

Number of bike commuters in Washington DC:

2012 -- 13,493
2013 -- 14,986
2014 -- 13,330
2015 -- 14,718
2016 -- 16,647
2017 -- 18,624
2018 -- 16,175
2019 -- 15,528
2020 -- 16,012
2021 -- 7,504
2022 -- 11,309
2023 -- 13,276

I’ve been a bike commuter for many of these years and was never surveyed. How can it be that you know the numbers of bike commuters down to single digits without even contacting me?

The truth is that these numbers, used in this fashion, are highly misleading. You are prone to accusing others of lying, but either you are statistically illiterate or being deceptive. Which one is it?

Yeah and what's the deal with these presidential polls where they don't interview every single voter in America? So misleading.

Reporting extrapolations from a poll without reporting the associated margin of error is the height of statistical idiocy.