Reply to Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE.  IT is Time to recall all these politicians.[/quote]

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.[/quote]

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?[/quote]

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?[/quote]

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

[/quote]

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one [u][b]do[/b][/u] you want to do?

[/quote]

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack? [/quote]

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.[/quote]

[b]So to you any busy road should have a bike lane?[/b] That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.  [/quote]

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. [b]Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike.[/b] And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?[/quote]

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.[/quote]

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.[/quote]

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there. [/quote]

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics