Road Diets Coming to Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

Two things can be true:
1. People are renting Capital Bikeshare bikes in record numbers.
2. The routes for which Capital Bikeshare users ride the bikes usually don't involve bike lanes.

The anti-bike lane poster claimed that fewer people are riding bikes in DC than five years ago. The Capital Bikeshare usage data demonstrates that this is very unlikely to be the case, Moreover, the claim that the DC government is not releasing usage data is simply "nonsense". See here: https://bikelanes.ddot.dc.gov/pages/manual-counts and here: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters. Plenty of data that is freely available to anyone who can type words in Google.

The bike count data on the DC website makes it clear that hardly anyone uses bike lanes. For the Theodore Washington Bridge, The average hourly biker count during rush hour) in the morning was 36/hour, in the afternoon it was 48/hour. This bridge has an average of more than 8,000 vehicles crossing it per hour during the same time period. Vehicle traffic is more than 150x higher than bike lanes and the number of passengers using vehicles over bike lanes is more than 200x this rate. It is irrational and wasteful to prioritize bikes over vehicles when less than 1% of commuters bike to work and most people have no interest in doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

You know there's a name for this error in logic, right?

If someone stole my and my spouse's bikes, and I decided not to buy another, and just use Capital Bikeshare instead, while my spouse stopped biking altogether, you'd say overall biking has increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

Two things can be true:
1. People are renting Capital Bikeshare bikes in record numbers.
2. The routes for which Capital Bikeshare users ride the bikes usually don't involve bike lanes.

The anti-bike lane poster claimed that fewer people are riding bikes in DC than five years ago. The Capital Bikeshare usage data demonstrates that this is very unlikely to be the case, Moreover, the claim that the DC government is not releasing usage data is simply "nonsense". See here: https://bikelanes.ddot.dc.gov/pages/manual-counts and here: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters. Plenty of data that is freely available to anyone who can type words in Google.

The bike count data on the DC website makes it clear that hardly anyone uses bike lanes. For the Theodore Washington Bridge, The average hourly biker count during rush hour) in the morning was 36/hour, in the afternoon it was 48/hour. This bridge has an average of more than 8,000 vehicles crossing it per hour during the same time period. Vehicle traffic is more than 150x higher than bike lanes and the number of passengers using vehicles over bike lanes is more than 200x this rate. It is irrational and wasteful to prioritize bikes over vehicles when less than 1% of commuters bike to work and most people have no interest in doing so.

How much more road space is allocated to cars? Once you control for that, things look a lot different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

Two things can be true:
1. People are renting Capital Bikeshare bikes in record numbers.
2. The routes for which Capital Bikeshare users ride the bikes usually don't involve bike lanes.

The anti-bike lane poster claimed that fewer people are riding bikes in DC than five years ago. The Capital Bikeshare usage data demonstrates that this is very unlikely to be the case, Moreover, the claim that the DC government is not releasing usage data is simply "nonsense". See here: https://bikelanes.ddot.dc.gov/pages/manual-counts and here: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters. Plenty of data that is freely available to anyone who can type words in Google.

The bike count data on the DC website makes it clear that hardly anyone uses bike lanes. For the Theodore Washington Bridge, The average hourly biker count during rush hour) in the morning was 36/hour, in the afternoon it was 48/hour. This bridge has an average of more than 8,000 vehicles crossing it per hour during the same time period. Vehicle traffic is more than 150x higher than bike lanes and the number of passengers using vehicles over bike lanes is more than 200x this rate. It is irrational and wasteful to prioritize bikes over vehicles when less than 1% of commuters bike to work and most people have no interest in doing so.

How much more road space is allocated to cars? Once you control for that, things look a lot different.

No they don't. It's thousands per lane versus 2 dozen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

You know there's a name for this error in logic, right?

If someone stole my and my spouse's bikes, and I decided not to buy another, and just use Capital Bikeshare instead, while my spouse stopped biking altogether, you'd say overall biking has increased.

You really believe that the growth in Capital Bikeshare usage is accounted for by people substituting trips using their own bikes with Capital Bikeshare? I guess you could make that argument, but there is absolutely no evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - to suggest that this is what is going on. If I had to hazard a guess, you are more interested in trying to spread misinformation than understanding what is really going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

Two things can be true:
1. People are renting Capital Bikeshare bikes in record numbers.
2. The routes for which Capital Bikeshare users ride the bikes usually don't involve bike lanes.

The anti-bike lane poster claimed that fewer people are riding bikes in DC than five years ago. The Capital Bikeshare usage data demonstrates that this is very unlikely to be the case, Moreover, the claim that the DC government is not releasing usage data is simply "nonsense". See here: https://bikelanes.ddot.dc.gov/pages/manual-counts and here: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters. Plenty of data that is freely available to anyone who can type words in Google.

The bike count data on the DC website makes it clear that hardly anyone uses bike lanes. For the Theodore Washington Bridge, The average hourly biker count during rush hour) in the morning was 36/hour, in the afternoon it was 48/hour. This bridge has an average of more than 8,000 vehicles crossing it per hour during the same time period. Vehicle traffic is more than 150x higher than bike lanes and the number of passengers using vehicles over bike lanes is more than 200x this rate. It is irrational and wasteful to prioritize bikes over vehicles when less than 1% of commuters bike to work and most people have no interest in doing so.

How much more road space is allocated to cars? Once you control for that, things look a lot different.

No they don't. It's thousands per lane versus 2 dozen.

Do cyclists have their own lane on the “Theodore Washington Bridge”, wherever the hell that is. Do you even live in the area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

You know there's a name for this error in logic, right?

If someone stole my and my spouse's bikes, and I decided not to buy another, and just use Capital Bikeshare instead, while my spouse stopped biking altogether, you'd say overall biking has increased.

You really believe that the growth in Capital Bikeshare usage is accounted for by people substituting trips using their own bikes with Capital Bikeshare? I guess you could make that argument, but there is absolutely no evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - to suggest that this is what is going on. If I had to hazard a guess, you are more interested in trying to spread misinformation than understanding what is really going on.

I think the point is that if you wanted to know how many people are riding bikes, it seems strange to focus on just one bike rental company (especially one that's subsidized by the government and which charges below market rates). For all we know, Capital Bikeshare is simply capturing market share by running privately run bike rental companies out of business because they can't compete with someone who gets tens of millions of dollars from the government and the number of total rentals in the city is not actually increasing. You'd also want to know how many Washingtonians own their own bikes, and how many of them actually ride them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

I can understand that it may be hard to see people in the bike lanes from your basement in Chevy Chase. But I travel all over DC daily and see a lot of cyclists using them.

The question is about utilization, not whether people use them at all. The utilization is so low that it doesn’t make sense to add bike lanes at the expense of car lanes.

I'm not sure you understand how traffic works. Cities can build as many roads as you want and make them as wide as you want and the end result will always be congestion. Almost any large metropolis in the world - outside of a few in Asia and Europe that strongly discourage driving - will provide evidence of this. The only durable way to reduce congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving your vehicle everywhere. Providing a safe means for people to use their bikes for short trips around town is one way to do this. Judging the success of bike lanes on their usage immediately after construction is silly. It inevitably takes some time to build out the network for bike trips to become a viable alternative and to build awareness of the alternative. It took me many years of living in the DC area before I rode my first bike, but my life became much easier after I took it up.

Nonsense. DC has had bike lanes for 20 years. We have lots of experience with this stuff. It turns out that bike lanes only appeal to a tiny share of the population, and even that share is steadily shrinking. There's fewer people riding bikes in DC than there were five years ago. The bike lanes are so unpopular that the city, which has relentlessly promoted them, has rarely released usage data because the numbers are so low.

You cry "Nonsense" and then proceed to fill an entire post with it. I've lived in DC over the past 20 years and can't recall any bike lanes that existed in 2005. Maybe there was one or two, but nothing like what the city has today, which is nonetheless a sparse smattering of disjointed segments rather than an actual network. The Capital Bikeshare data - which is freely available and in fact shows almost exponential growth over the past few years - strongly suggests that you are dead wrong about the number of people riding bikes. Any other fibs you want to share with us?

You know there's a name for this error in logic, right?

If someone stole my and my spouse's bikes, and I decided not to buy another, and just use Capital Bikeshare instead, while my spouse stopped biking altogether, you'd say overall biking has increased.

You really believe that the growth in Capital Bikeshare usage is accounted for by people substituting trips using their own bikes with Capital Bikeshare? I guess you could make that argument, but there is absolutely no evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - to suggest that this is what is going on. If I had to hazard a guess, you are more interested in trying to spread misinformation than understanding what is really going on.

I think the point is that if you wanted to know how many people are riding bikes, it seems strange to focus on just one bike rental company (especially one that's subsidized by the government and which charges below market rates). For all we know, Capital Bikeshare is simply capturing market share by running privately run bike rental companies out of business because they can't compete with someone who gets tens of millions of dollars from the government and the number of total rentals in the city is not actually increasing. You'd also want to know how many Washingtonians own their own bikes, and how many of them actually ride them.

Big Bikeshare is putting mom-and-pop bike rentals out of business? The contortions you'll go through to pretend biking isn't up are pretty impressive.

[Anonymous]

The city I worked in tried the Road Diet about 12 years ago. It wasn't popular because cars started using side neighborhood parallel roads to bypass the congestion. This led to issues with cars going faster than they should on roads where kids were walking to bus stops.

Most everyone was relieved when they ended the experiment after 6 months or so. It was planned to only be an experiment, not permanent. I guess if it had been popular, they would have discussed keeping it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Road diet."

If the public actually wanted this, they wouldn't have to come up with an Orwellian euphemism to describe it.

"Road diets" in DC mean lots and lots of bike lanes than no one uses and worse congestion for modes of transportation that people actually use.

Go back to DC if you want road diets, most people here don’t want this nonsense.

I live in Springfield, NOVA outside the beltway and do not bike, commute to DC by car and yes would like a road diet in my area for certain roads. Many posters here do not actually seem to live in outside the beltway NOVA.

[Anonymous]

We need to move on from bikes and focus on antonymous vehicles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county is going to reduce the roads from four lanes to two lanes in multiple areas to install bike lanes that almost no one uses. The county apparently ascribes to nonsense trendy theories from clueless urban planner that believe people in low density suburbs will walk and bike to work in locations miles away from their homes.
https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/04/02/transportation-authorities-to-lay-out-plans-for-new-road-diets-and-bike-lanes-around-fairfax/

Maybe bemoaning the slight drawback in roads for cars/suvs and instead supporting alternatives should be celebrated?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/12/air-pollution-paris-health-cars/

Oh, or maybe you don't care and asthma and obesity is just a fine outcome for you and little johnny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to move on from bikes and focus on antonymous vehicles

Other than maybe speeding, autonomous vehicles don't solve any of the main problems with cars, and in some ways will make them worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county is going to reduce the roads from four lanes to two lanes in multiple areas to install bike lanes that almost no one uses. The county apparently ascribes to nonsense trendy theories from clueless urban planner that believe people in low density suburbs will walk and bike to work in locations miles away from their homes.
https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/04/02/transportation-authorities-to-lay-out-plans-for-new-road-diets-and-bike-lanes-around-fairfax/

Maybe bemoaning the slight drawback in roads for cars/suvs and instead supporting alternatives should be celebrated?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/12/air-pollution-paris-health-cars/

Oh, or maybe you don't care and asthma and obesity is just a fine outcome for you and little johnny?

This is not a “slight” change they are halving the number of car lanes for traffic to make room for almost nonexistent bike commuters. If one of the busiest bridges in DC has less than 50 bike commuters during rush hour, how many will Chantilly have? Probably 5/hour during rush hour. It is nonsensical to spend millions of dollars on a “road diet” that worsens quality of life and creates traffic gridlock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county is going to reduce the roads from four lanes to two lanes in multiple areas to install bike lanes that almost no one uses. The county apparently ascribes to nonsense trendy theories from clueless urban planner that believe people in low density suburbs will walk and bike to work in locations miles away from their homes.
https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/04/02/transportation-authorities-to-lay-out-plans-for-new-road-diets-and-bike-lanes-around-fairfax/

Maybe bemoaning the slight drawback in roads for cars/suvs and instead supporting alternatives should be celebrated?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/12/air-pollution-paris-health-cars/

Oh, or maybe you don't care and asthma and obesity is just a fine outcome for you and little johnny?

This is not a “slight” change they are halving the number of car lanes for traffic to make room for almost nonexistent bike commuters. If one of the busiest bridges in DC has less than 50 bike commuters during rush hour, how many will Chantilly have? Probably 5/hour during rush hour. It is nonsensical to spend millions of dollars on a “road diet” that worsens quality of life and creates traffic gridlock.

Live in NOVA outside the beltway. Commute to DC for work.

Would like road diet on many roads in the area that are needlessly large and like highways with dangerous bad accidents. Every poster here seems to live in DC or close in and does not actually live in the impacted areas.