Can we never do Open Streets again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1. It was a absolute mess with people walking around everywhere. Next time they do this they need to do a much better (and by "much better" I mean "at all") job explaining that open streets doesn't mean that crowds of people can just stroll down the middle of the road like it's a block party. The street is still reserved for vehicles, except in this case that means bicycles, not cars. People should still be walking on the sidewalk, not in the middle of the road. The point of this was to demonstrate that we could use our existing streets to allow use by bicycles-only, getting everyone out of their cars and on nonpolluting modes of transit. People won't realistically embrace a cycling commute if there's still the same hassles from crowds of pedestrians all over road as there were from cars.

Look at any urban area that has a significant road-use-by-cyclist factor, with fewer cars overall (Amsterdam for example). If you examine their "traffic" patterns, you see that the roads in urban cores are more than 90% occupied by bicycle users in some areas. But pedestrians DON'T walk in the street simply because of an absence of motor vehicles. They stay on the sidewalks which were designed for them, while the streets belong to bike users as intended.

The same idea needs to be reinforced here next time they do open streets. Open streets doesn't mean "walk in the street"

That is EXACTLY what Open Streets does mean.

What you want is good bicycle infrastructure. And I do too - all day, every day. But that's not Open Streets.

[Anonymous]

DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

Yes, that was the whole point.

-a person who rides a bike a lot

+1. It was a absolute mess with people walking around everywhere. Next time they do this they need to do a much better (and by "much better" I mean "at all") job explaining that open streets doesn't mean that crowds of people can just stroll down the middle of the road like it's a block party. The street is still reserved for vehicles, except in this case that means bicycles, not cars. People should still be walking on the sidewalk, not in the middle of the road. The point of this was to demonstrate that we could use our existing streets to allow use by bicycles-only, getting everyone out of their cars and on nonpolluting modes of transit. People won't realistically embrace a cycling commute if there's still the same hassles from crowds of pedestrians all over road as there were from cars.

Look at any urban area that has a significant road-use-by-cyclist factor, with fewer cars overall (Amsterdam for example). If you examine their "traffic" patterns, you see that the roads in urban cores are more than 90% occupied by bicycle users in some areas. But pedestrians DON'T walk in the street simply because of an absence of motor vehicles. They stay on the sidewalks which were designed for them, while the streets belong to bike users as intended.

The same idea needs to be reinforced here next time they do open streets. Open streets doesn't mean "walk in the street"

It was actually to do anything but drive. So everyone had a right to be in the street.

Dp before cars, streets used to be for people walking. I think we should have a people first moto rather than a car first.

Then what are sidewalks for ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dp before cars, streets used to be for people walking. I think we should have a people first moto rather than a car first.

Then what are sidewalks for ?

Next time you're walking, take a look at how much space on the road is devoted to cars, compared to how much space is devoted to pedestrians.

Or ask yourself what would happen if you decided to walk in the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

You’re delusional. I would invite you to read the text from the WABA site about this very event, especially the bolded portion:

What would you do on streets with no cars? Would you dance? Ride your bike with child-like joy? Invite your friends and family to join?

On Saturday, October 5th, DC is organizing its first-ever Open Streets event and you can do it all!

Nearly three miles of Georgia Avenue NW will be temporarily closed to encourage folks to be active and enjoy their city and communities.

This is a great opportunity to bring your family and friends out for a day of fun, from walking, pushing strollers, dancing, hopscotching, shopping, and meeting neighbors — all on car-free streets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

Well, now you know.

Also, I'm checking, and here's what WABA says:

What would you do on streets with no cars? Would you dance? Ride your bike with child-like joy? Invite your friends and family to join?

On Saturday, October 5th, DC is organizing its first-ever Open Streets event and you can do it all!

Nearly three miles of Georgia Avenue NW will be temporarily closed to encourage folks to be active and enjoy their city and communities.

This is a great opportunity to bring your family and friends out for a day of fun, from walking, pushing strollers, dancing, hopscotching, shopping, and meeting neighbors — all on car-free streets!

What is open streets? It’s when you temporarily close a roadway to vehicle traffic and open it up to the people – so that the neighborhood and the city can walk, run, play, push strollers, bike, hulah hoop, hopscotch, dance, and have fun in the middle of the street. WABA has been advocating for an open streets event in DC since 2016.

Why are open streets projects awesome? Open streets encourage active transportation and community engagement. By opening up streets to people, you:

Create a safe and welcoming place for residents to come together and enjoy playing and moving through a car-free space;
Serve DC residents and connect neighbors;
Invest in the community;
Draw national attention to DC’s commitment to safe streets and active transportation;
Encourage community members and decision makers to think about public space in a new way

Come see what it looks like to reclaim streets for people and families.

https://waba.org/blog/2019/09/open-streets-dc/

So maybe you misread?

[Anonymous]

Every cyclist I know who was at the event said how great it was.

I am guessing the "cyclist" complaining about peds walking in the street is not actually a bike rider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

It wasn’t a WABA event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

Sounds like you felt the same way about pedestrians as many drivers feel about cyclists. I’m sorry “you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed,” because you had to share the road with slower moving people. It does suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

Yes, that was the whole point.

-a person who rides a bike a lot

+1. It was a absolute mess with people walking around everywhere. Next time they do this they need to do a much better (and by "much better" I mean "at all") job explaining that open streets doesn't mean that crowds of people can just stroll down the middle of the road like it's a block party. The street is still reserved for vehicles, except in this case that means bicycles, not cars. People should still be walking on the sidewalk, not in the middle of the road. The point of this was to demonstrate that we could use our existing streets to allow use by bicycles-only, getting everyone out of their cars and on nonpolluting modes of transit. People won't realistically embrace a cycling commute if there's still the same hassles from crowds of pedestrians all over road as there were from cars.

Look at any urban area that has a significant road-use-by-cyclist factor, with fewer cars overall (Amsterdam for example). If you examine their "traffic" patterns, you see that the roads in urban cores are more than 90% occupied by bicycle users in some areas. But pedestrians DON'T walk in the street simply because of an absence of motor vehicles. They stay on the sidewalks which were designed for them, while the streets belong to bike users as intended.

The same idea needs to be reinforced here next time they do open streets. Open streets doesn't mean "walk in the street"

Just because you think that’s what “open streets” means that doesn’t mean it’s the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

Sounds like you felt the same way about pedestrians as many drivers feel about cyclists. I’m sorry “you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed,” because you had to share the road with slower moving people. It does suck.

I am pretty sure the PP IS a driver, and is trying to make this point. Everyone I know who is actually a bike rider and who was at the event is happy about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

It wasn’t a WABA event.

No, it was a District of Columbia government event that involved several agencies. However, WABA heavily promoted it and even sponsored an event. Here is language that WABA chose to post on their website:

The District of Columbia is hosting the region’s first ever Open Streets event, where folks of all ages are invited to use car-free streets to exercise, jog, dance, scoot, bike, play roller hockey, and enjoy being outside.

WABA and the Rita Bright Family and Youth Recreation center will lead a fun, social ride from the Rita Bright Center to DC Open Streets.

WABA was definitely promoting this as an event where pedestrians should be in the streets. To asset a different interpretation is being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

Well, now you know.

Also, I'm checking, and here's what WABA says:

What would you do on streets with no cars? Would you dance? Ride your bike with child-like joy? Invite your friends and family to join?

On Saturday, October 5th, DC is organizing its first-ever Open Streets event and you can do it all!

Nearly three miles of Georgia Avenue NW will be temporarily closed to encourage folks to be active and enjoy their city and communities.

This is a great opportunity to bring your family and friends out for a day of fun, from walking, pushing strollers, dancing, hopscotching, shopping, and meeting neighbors — all on car-free streets!

What is open streets? It’s when you temporarily close a roadway to vehicle traffic and open it up to the people – so that the neighborhood and the city can walk, run, play, push strollers, bike, hulah hoop, hopscotch, dance, and have fun in the middle of the street. WABA has been advocating for an open streets event in DC since 2016.

Why are open streets projects awesome? Open streets encourage active transportation and community engagement. By opening up streets to people, you:

Create a safe and welcoming place for residents to come together and enjoy playing and moving through a car-free space;
Serve DC residents and connect neighbors;
Invest in the community;
Draw national attention to DC’s commitment to safe streets and active transportation;
Encourage community members and decision makers to think about public space in a new way

Come see what it looks like to reclaim streets for people and families.

https://waba.org/blog/2019/09/open-streets-dc/

So maybe you misread?

The very first implication is that this event was supposed to clear the roads for cyclists to use. It's pretty obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I heard about it from WABA this summer, I was incredibly excited. As a cyclist, I really liked the idea of it as a concept - getting cars off the road and letting everyone see the great possibilities of car-less roads as a vision of the future. But it totally failed in execution because people were walking all over the damn road. WTF? So you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed because some dumbass would just step right out in front of you like you weren’t there. Uh HELLO! It’s still a road people! Just because there aren’t cars doesn’t mean you can just walk where the hell you want. “Open streets” =/= “pedestrians don’t have to stay on the sidewalk”. So it was sort of a failure from the perspective of using the street for car-less travel, because it just resulted in mobs of people getting in the way. Next time they need to make it clear that walkers need to stay on the sidewalk.

Sounds like you felt the same way about pedestrians as many drivers feel about cyclists. I’m sorry “you couldn’t ride down the street at any useful speed,” because you had to share the road with slower moving people. It does suck.

I am pretty sure the PP IS a driver, and is trying to make this point. Everyone I know who is actually a bike rider and who was at the event is happy about it.

I'm the PP you're quoting. I haven't owned a car in 6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, that's not what I took it to mean, and it's not how WABA was promoting it

It wasn’t a WABA event.

No one said it was. But I first learned of from the WABA website