Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

No. DDOT won't even release the data it collected on the amount of bicyclists that use it currently.

DDOT has tons of data. Tells you something that they won't release it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.




But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

We could also limit cars to 20-25 MPH like they do elsewhere.

If an e-bike can go 20mph it needs to be in the same category as a car and follow car rules, not bike rules. I live on a block that has a light at one end and we are getting ebikes speeding through the red light and then flying down our street at high speed. It's a short block so there isn't a lot of warning that they are there before they whip by you. Yesterday, I saw a woman crossing the block in the crosswalk pushing a stroller, and she was almost knocked over by an ebike that sped through the light and seemed to come out of nowhere. When you see a red light at the end of the block you know no cars are coming and can start to cross, but it doesn't work the same way with the ebikes as they are much more unpredictable. It's a bad accident waiting to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

People who drive report that their commute has gotten easier. People who use transit report that their commute has gotten more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.




But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

We could also limit cars to 20-25 MPH like they do elsewhere.

If an e-bike can go 20mph it needs to be in the same category as a car and follow car rules, not bike rules. I live on a block that has a light at one end and we are getting ebikes speeding through the red light and then flying down our street at high speed. It's a short block so there isn't a lot of warning that they are there before they whip by you. Yesterday, I saw a woman crossing the block in the crosswalk pushing a stroller, and she was almost knocked over by an ebike that sped through the light and seemed to come out of nowhere. When you see a red light at the end of the block you know no cars are coming and can start to cross, but it doesn't work the same way with the ebikes as they are much more unpredictable. It's a bad accident waiting to happen.

So true. E-bikes, especially cargo bikes, are like heavy SUVs compared with ordinary bicycles. A child or an elderly person (or anyone) can be severely injured if hit by an e-bike at cruising speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.




But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

We could also limit cars to 20-25 MPH like they do elsewhere.

If an e-bike can go 20mph it needs to be in the same category as a car and follow car rules, not bike rules. I live on a block that has a light at one end and we are getting ebikes speeding through the red light and then flying down our street at high speed. It's a short block so there isn't a lot of warning that they are there before they whip by you. Yesterday, I saw a woman crossing the block in the crosswalk pushing a stroller, and she was almost knocked over by an ebike that sped through the light and seemed to come out of nowhere. When you see a red light at the end of the block you know no cars are coming and can start to cross, but it doesn't work the same way with the ebikes as they are much more unpredictable. It's a bad accident waiting to happen.

So true. E-bikes, especially cargo bikes, are like heavy SUVs compared with ordinary bicycles. A child or an elderly person (or anyone) can be severely injured if hit by an e-bike at cruising speed.

This is a vacuous point. How many kids are killed by SUVs and cars everyday compared to e-bike? And yet you favor SUVs still speeding through Connecticut Ave with the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

Yes, reclaim Reno for local use and keep thru-traffic on Connecticut. Once you've built out a local bike network and people use it, then work on linking it downtown. This Connecticut or bust strategy is clearly not working if the goal is to convert trips from car to bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.




But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

We could also limit cars to 20-25 MPH like they do elsewhere.

If an e-bike can go 20mph it needs to be in the same category as a car and follow car rules, not bike rules. I live on a block that has a light at one end and we are getting ebikes speeding through the red light and then flying down our street at high speed. It's a short block so there isn't a lot of warning that they are there before they whip by you. Yesterday, I saw a woman crossing the block in the crosswalk pushing a stroller, and she was almost knocked over by an ebike that sped through the light and seemed to come out of nowhere. When you see a red light at the end of the block you know no cars are coming and can start to cross, but it doesn't work the same way with the ebikes as they are much more unpredictable. It's a bad accident waiting to happen.

So true. E-bikes, especially cargo bikes, are like heavy SUVs compared with ordinary bicycles. A child or an elderly person (or anyone) can be severely injured if hit by an e-bike at cruising speed.

This is a vacuous point. How many kids are killed by SUVs and cars everyday compared to e-bike? And yet you favor SUVs still speeding through Connecticut Ave with the status quo.

How many? Why not cut out the hyperbole and just look at the Vision Zero dashboard.
https://visionzero.dc.gov/pages/crash-analysis

The answer is that there has been exactly zero kids killed on bikes in DC by SUVs and cars in 2024. The two unfortunate adult victims this year died because one was in a collision late night collision with another cyclist on Pennsylvania Avenue NW and the second was illegally cycling on 295 at 4:30 AM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

No. DDOT won't even release the data it collected on the amount of bicyclists that use it currently.

DDOT has tons of data. Tells you something that they won't release it.

It says everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

Yes, reclaim Reno for local use and keep thru-traffic on Connecticut. Once you've built out a local bike network and people use it, then work on linking it downtown. This Connecticut or bust strategy is clearly not working if the goal is to convert trips from car to bike.

This makes too much sense, which is why there is some much nonsense arguing against it. Reno also has the advantage of being the effective parallel midpoint between Connecticut and Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

+1000