You must log in or register to comment.

moka_soldier t1_j2d87gl wrote

It would also be great to maintain the bike lanes that already exist. The Florida Ave NE bike lane is a death trap with how chunked up the road is


xqe2045 t1_j2dufe3 wrote

can’t believe they call that a bike lane


9throwaway2 t1_j2eklle wrote

I'm not sure it is; half the markings seem gone too


huntertheram t1_j2djb06 wrote

Leave it as is, it’s how I test how well everything is tied down on my rack and trailer. /s


tshontikidis t1_j2e172a wrote

I am pretty sure there were always part of the interim plan before a final capital project, I recently saw an announcement about that kicking back off. FL going to be a mess for year+, but hopefully worth it.


Stevens-Ainge_2020 t1_j2eik10 wrote

Can confirm, construction should be starting soon (if not already) on the permanent improvements!


mastakebob t1_j2emocp wrote

I just got a flat this morning on those lanes!


tinyhorseinthecity t1_j2f69j7 wrote

Hell, the state of FL Ave right now, it's barely even a road.

Here's hoping for the big project actually fixes the lane and maybe deletes street lights in the middle of too-narrow sidewalks that make them impassible for strollers or differently abled folks.


Potential-Calendar t1_j2dw25y wrote

I’m so confused why things like this always generate comments like “What about all the elderly and disabled people who can’t bike? We shouldn’t do this because of them.” That would make sense if they were making Connecticut bike only, but there are still going to be 2 car lanes in each direction, it’s not like they’re banning cars or disability vans or whatever, in fact they still are given the majority of the space and the most number of lanes.


giscard78 t1_j2dybfy wrote

> I’m so confused why things like this always generate comments like “What about all the elderly and disabled people who can’t bike? We shouldn’t do this because of them.”

There’s also this weird false premise that people interested in cycle infrastructure want it at the expense of other pedestrian infrastructure when really, the actual goal is about comprehensive non-automotive (or at least non single occupancy vehicle) infrastructure.


AngelsGoHome t1_j2e7l3t wrote

“What about the people who can’t bike” is concern trolling as is,

  • “What about emergency vehicles” and
  • “Pollution will go up if we slow cars down”

Potential-Calendar t1_j2eabj6 wrote

The whole congestion causing pollution thing is so incredibly ridiculous that I think it’s done as a red herring to make opposition look stupid. So the solution to cars causing pollution is to have more lanes of traffic bringing more cars in? Hilarious


NicholasAakre t1_j2ez8js wrote

People have argued that cyclists are actually bigger contributors to CO2 emissions than drivers because they're breathing harder.


Yithar t1_j2e8w55 wrote

> I’m so confused why things like this always generate comments like “What about all the elderly and disabled people who can’t bike? We shouldn’t do this because of them.”

It's so weird to me because I assume places like the Netherlands where biking is very common don't just leave the elderly and disabled to rot.


NicholasAakre t1_j2ezhal wrote

Of course not, they throw them into the canals, Viking-style.


mmarkDC t1_j2fral3 wrote

It's pretty common to see mobility scooters in the bike lanes there, as one way it helps (some) disabled people. When there's a well maintained bike lane, it's a smoother and faster ride than navigating sidewalks.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2edu3d wrote

They don’t actually care about the elderly or disabled people or baristas that have to travel in from the suburbs.

These are all just excuses so the public can continue to subsidize their cars existence.


SnortingCoffee t1_j2e3kw3 wrote

What about all the elderly and disabled people who can't bike and want the maximum number of cars on the roads at all times?


NicholasAakre t1_j2ezcg2 wrote

Fuck those people.

Not because they're old or disabled, but because they want the maximum number of cars.


dc1348 t1_j2eis2e wrote

Love this stat:

> DDOT Bicycle Program Specialist Will Handsfield said the cycle track on 15th Street NW, which debuted in a different format in 2009, now conveys 400 to 500 cyclists per hour during peak periods — a higher per-lane volume than the three adjacent car lanes, which collectively host about 1,200 vehicles.

In nicer weather there are times the 15th street bike lane has the closest thing to a bike traffic jam I've ever experienced. It's the perfect argument for "if you build it they will come."


9throwaway2 t1_j2eq5sz wrote

if you build it, they will come.

build car lanes, get traffic and car fatalities.

build bike lanes, get bike traffic and minor scrapes (at worst)


Pipes_of_Pan t1_j2f4xz6 wrote

As someone with friends who work with DDOT, I will remind everyone here that nearly all of the most progressive and bike-friendly ideas we talk about here, DDOT would love to do. The hard parts are managing limited resources, dealing with local lunatics threatening lawsuits, and prioritizing the work. Our DDOT is definitely an ally, not an adversary, unless you’re that dickbag in Dupont who melts down on sight of a bike


joelhardi t1_j2eke4i wrote

The main emphasis needs to be on the major crosstown roads (like Connecticut Ave) that allow you to ride from A to B most directly -- these are the direct, through roads that are typically graded with gentle slopes (dating back to streetcar and even horse wagon days), like Connecticut. In theory they're the most ideal for cycling.

But these are the very roads where people are afraid to ride, because vehicle speed differentials and volumes are higher, and it's scary. So they're where bike lanes are most essential, where people can't and don't ride bikes today. Every now and then I'll suck it up and chance a half-mile on Rhode Island, Mass, Benning, South Dakota, Michigan because I need to get somewhere and don't have an extra 20 minutes to backtrack through random neighborhoods and maybe get lost, but it's no fun and not a risk I'm going to run regularly. But most people wouldn't be caught dead on any of those.

To really reap the reward of getting substantially more people riding for transportation, the city should refocus on getting the major network done first. Where I live I have got north/south bike lanes on 17th, 15th, 14th, 11th and now 9th -- and I ride 13th a lot too, which is fine without bike lanes. Along with east/west lanes on already slow streets like Q, R, T, V, W. That's great and I appreciate it, but I'd trade any 2 or 3 of those to get any of Connecticut (done!), Rhode Island, NH, Florida, or NY Aves.

Planners should keep in mind that drivers who only need to move their right foot an inch to accelerate to 25 aren't really affected by hills, slight detours, stop controls at ever intersection. But on a bike, a direct route, steady climb/descent, and green lights are so much better, and are what will see this new infrastructure really get used by everyone and justify its construction. Even the drivers complaining will get an ebike and ride it in on nice days when major commute roads like Mass, RI, Bladensburg, Benning are straight shots.


app_priori t1_j2elv7g wrote

In addition to more bike lanes, the city should also focus on another huge thing that's keeping people from riding their bike more: rampant bike theft.

Now I understand that bike theft is scarcely on most police forces' radars insofar as crime is concerned, but the city should build out a network of staffed bike cages throughout the city so that people feel comfortable using their bike as a commuting option. Most of my friends use their bikes for recreation only but not as a commuting option because there's no safe place to park their bikes. Most bike thieves steal with impunity, even in well-trafficked areas.

I agree that road safety is paramount for cyclists but that's not the only issue. If your front wheel, seat, or whole bike keeps getting stolen by people running around with hydraulic bolt cutters and battery angle grinders, you are less likely to ride your bike and use the infrastructure that the city is spending money to build out.


Yithar t1_j2eonqf wrote

> In addition to more bike lanes, the city should also focus on another huge thing that's keeping people from riding their bike more: rampant bike theft. > >

Yup. This is a huge thing. I spent roughly $400 on this chain lock (btw, I recommend purchasing a separate disc lock to use with the chain vs the one it comes with) and this anti-angle grinder lock because well, my e-bike costs a few thousand dollars. And even then I'd only leave it locked for around 30 minutes or so while I do shopping.

I've rented 5' x 5' Self Storage since there aren't enough bike lockers at Metro stations. But that is very limiting because it limits me to parking at the Self Storage next to Rockville Metro Station.

EDIT: Weird downvote but okay. Obviously lives are more important as you can replace a bicycle but not a life, but you can both build bike lanes and work to prevent bike theft.


app_priori t1_j2eoykg wrote

I know a lot of cyclists keep harping about safety and bike lanes, but I think bike theft is really the bigger problem overall. Yes, one cyclist killed is still one cyclist killed too many but hundreds if not thousands of people get their bikes swiped in this city every year.


I_have_a_chair t1_j2eqlmg wrote

I hear your concern, but hard disagree on that one. You can replace or recover a stolen bike, but you can't replace a dead cyclist


app_priori t1_j2f15sh wrote

I don't disagree. Lives matter more than property, yes.

But the issues are separate and require separate sets of solutions. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.


LuciusAurelian t1_j2e0vx8 wrote

The comments on that article are pretty encouraging.

I hope DDOT and the council are listening, the loud whiners who come out the woodwork to declare that the sky is falling when a new bike lane is being built are not the majority.


daedelous t1_j2edio7 wrote

I mean, they’re putting in tons of bike lanes now as part of a long term project. It’s not an instant thing.


9throwaway2 t1_j2ekxfm wrote

nobody has had any electoral pushback on bike lanes. even in ward 3, krucoff - who ran explicitly against bike lanes and didn't say anything about anything else - got destroyed.

the only pushback seems to be on nextdoor; but it isn't translating into election results. seems like just a minority that screams loudly.


placeperson t1_j2dhjjk wrote

Look and see what is possible once Jo Ann Armao fucks off into retirement


unl1988 t1_j2fmpq9 wrote

More bike lanes, sure. lower speed limit? OK. More stop signs? Great.

None of it matters unless someone enforces the rules.

More bike lanes = more parking for whoever wants to park there.


jabroni2020 t1_j2ftuhi wrote

Not if the bike lanes are protected (which I think the article is pushing for)


boxofreddit t1_j2feyek wrote

No. DC desperatley needs more (or any) traffic enforcement. More bike lanes, without police enforcement, just means meaningless white paint and barricades for exclusive fake paper Maryland tag driver parking. SOURCE: DC road bike enjoyer and Maryland driver.


morningwoodman1 t1_j2er982 wrote

Ok it us three years old but can not be that much different today. The numbers come from their 2019 performance report and their 2019 highway safety traffic statistic


noquarter53 t1_j2e97bh wrote

I live near Dupont and the bike lanes are super comprehensive, but honestly they seem underused... I rarely see people biking through the very walkable areas.

genuine question: When a neighborhood is extremely walkable, are bike lanes everywhere necessary?


skiwhatwhat t1_j2efm71 wrote

Keep in mind that biking isn't about traveling within a neighborhood - biking is the option for being able to travel between neighborhoods without using a car. So even if one neighborhood is walkable, bike infrastructure is necessary for anyone who wants to e.g. commute to work or bike to a friend in another area or get to a grocery store if they live far from one.

Also, and I'm not saying this is what you said, but I do get frustrated at the implications people make that if they don't see a lot of bikers in a bike lane, that means the bike lanes aren't worth it. The reality is twofold: 1) unless they're watching the lane all the time and keeping a counter, what someone sees is just anecdotes; and 2) it takes building protected bike lanes to get more people to bike - there are surveys out there showing that in cities many more people would bike if they felt the infrastructure supported it. So sure, maybe fewer people use a given bike lane for now, but once it gets connected to other bike lanes across the city, it will attract more folks to bike. You can't just put in one lane on one street and go "no one it using this, therefore the bike lane is useless" because it ignores the larger context.


noquarter53 t1_j2figqg wrote

Yeah, I'm just skeptical that having complicated bike lanes weaving in and out of traffic and highly walkable areas makes a lot of sense. DC is a massive tourist destination and out of town people don't understand how these lanes work. Piling layer upon layer of transportation has diminishing returns.

I would rather see some dedicated bike streets (close a couple E/W N/S streets for cars and repurpose them for only bikes).


skiwhatwhat t1_j2fo6zi wrote

Oh I would LOVE to see dedicated bike streets! Unfortunately, that’s probably the least likely option to happen because it would be seen as inconveniencing drivers too much.

As for out of town drivers, the benefit of protected bike lanes over painted ones is that there’s nothing to figure out with the protected ones - they’re blocked from cars, so you know not to drive there.


SpeedysComing t1_j2eane4 wrote

Weird, I always see them in use.

They also are pretty disconnected around Dupont unfortunately, but getting better.

And yes, bike lanes are necessary. Lol why wouldn't they be? Are car lanes necessary if an area is walkable?


veloharris t1_j2eseu3 wrote

What bike lanes in DuPont do you find underused? They're all heavily utilized.


noquarter53 t1_j2fg0v7 wrote

By that weird beer castle on new Hampshire.


Yithar t1_j2ehr5i wrote

> I live near Dupont and the bike lanes are super comprehensive, but honestly they seem underused

As stated, there's a larger context. You need good infrastructure so cyclists that aren't the "extremists" will ride bikes. I'd consider myself an "extremist" considering I got an e-bike to commute to Rockville Metro Station when the bus doesn't run.

> genuine question: When a neighborhood is extremely walkable, are bike lanes everywhere necessary?

I'd like to emphasize what the other person stated, that bicycles are for neighborhood to neighborhood travel. In essence, they're replacing trips that would be done with a car.


the5nowman t1_j2eiv8s wrote

You rarely see bikes in them because they’re so efficient and don’t sit in traffic :)


abcpdo t1_j2eknsl wrote

are roads necessary? is metro necessary?


StrangeOldHermit77 t1_j2fb7gr wrote

Yes, unlike bike lanes.


abcpdo t1_j2fedxb wrote

why do you need to have a road or metro if everything is extremely walkable?


Illin-ithid t1_j2fj3bz wrote

Today I biked from NE to 18th and U. Without bike lanes I would have taken an Uber creating more traffic in the neighborhoods along the way. As others have said, bike lanes are good for intermediate distances.


NicholasAakre t1_j2f0c9v wrote

> When a neighborhood is extremely walkable, are bike lanes everywhere necessary?

In my opinion, probably not. However, an extremely walkable neighborhood would be devoid of cars. And if there aren't any cars, bike lanes are less necessary.


Radical_Euphoria t1_j2edr3m wrote

This subreddit needs flair for “Bicycle Bitching” or “Bike Circle Jerk”


mart_nargy t1_j2dw0x6 wrote

It needs more frequent, versatile, and reliable public transportation. Something we can all use. We aren’t biking our way out of this problem.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2eeekb wrote

I don’t think there is a single person who is in favor more biking infrastructure, who isn’t also in favor of better public transportation.

The two go hand in hand.


mart_nargy t1_j2efuyx wrote

Let’s do the first thing, and if there’s money left over, we can talk about the second, much-less-important-to-society thing


Suburbs-suck t1_j2egmxo wrote

I can teach you to ride a bike, there’s no need to be embarrassed.


mart_nargy t1_j2egtjw wrote

Bikes are cool. Bike people are the worst.


sl8rfan2 t1_j2ekysj wrote

Broad sweeping generalizations are idiotic.


NoGovernment8587 t1_j2ed7cy wrote

Porque No los Dos?


mart_nargy t1_j2edn3j wrote

Things cost money. Priority goes to helping everyone, not just the able bodied mostly white people clamoring for bike lanes.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2eeh0x wrote

This is just concern trolling.


mart_nargy t1_j2efpvn wrote

I dunno man, white people do a great job of making everything about them


Suburbs-suck t1_j2eg499 wrote

I’m not white you troll.


mart_nargy t1_j2egkvb wrote

Well I am, and let me tell you, we do a great job of it. The bike people especially.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2egwma wrote

You didn’t need to tell me that. Literally 100% of the people who concern troll about white people are white lol.

Racial minorities tend to have actual things to be concerned about.


mart_nargy t1_j2ehdu3 wrote

Deflect all you want, but there’s no denying that bike lanes are going to be used by able bodied folk, mostly white, and only during warm weather. I mean, is this really what we need to focus our spending on?


Suburbs-suck t1_j2ehzx8 wrote

Better biking infrastructure benefits everyone, including people who don’t bike and the public transportation that you purport to care about.

This is something that places like the Netherlands have figured out.

Not so fun fact: black and Hispanic cyclists have close to a 30% higher fatality rate than white cyclists, in part because of people refusing to invest in better bike infrastructure.


xanadumuse t1_j2fil6i wrote

Cars cost money. There used to be a time( and probably still are places) where African Americans biked everywhere. Why aren’t they now ? Probably infrastructure and I’m going to go out on a limb and say the stigma attached to not having a car. Having a car similar to other countries is a status symbol- kind of like eating meat. I also just think car culture will always be dominant in the states. It’s sad - biking is cheaper, better for your health and better for the environment.


Yithar t1_j2ef2hu wrote

It really isn't an either/or between say, dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes. Bike lanes just tend to be a lot cheaper than dedicated bus lanes which is why you see more effort towards them.

> Bike lanes cost next to nothing to implement compared to any other type of transit, so not really. Even a BRT lane on an existing road would cost considerably more per mile than a bike lane. The problem is, car centric transit eats up the vast, vast majority of most city’s transit budget.


mart_nargy t1_j2egax2 wrote

Yeah, you can always do two things at once. The question is, what should we be spending our limited resources on, and who is it benefiting?


Yithar t1_j2eh9gh wrote

Well, my other point was that it's expensive to construct dedicated bus lanes versus bike lanes. If you don't have the money to do one thing, then it becomes a no brainer to do the other thing, even if it's not as helpful.


mart_nargy t1_j2ehte1 wrote

Unless they cost zero dollars, I can think of any number of social services that could use that money instead. To say nothing of the fact that not everyone can use a bike lane (need to be able bodied and afford a bike), so it’s really a benefit to the bike crowd, which is mostly white.


sl8rfan2 t1_j2el80a wrote

Have you been in the city? the VAST majority of people I see using bikes are people of color. You've created this picture in your mind of entitled white people in spandex biking for you know that many people can't afford cars and use bikes as a primary means of transportation? Get out more.


mart_nargy t1_j2elrzd wrote

Lol, it’d be one thing if you said “there are more POC cyclists than you think,” or “the color of rider depends on the part of the city.” But you went straight to the all-caps VAST. You’re a brave one.


Yithar t1_j2eivli wrote

Well, I'm pretty sure the money that's allocated to DDOT isn't available for use by other agencies. Now maybe you could argue the allocation should be changed but as it is that's how it is.


mart_nargy t1_j2ejeo2 wrote

I’m not an expert (not a joke, I’m just guessing here, so could be wrong) but I think the allocations are made in part based on current or future projects. So if there aren’t bike lane projects on the docket, that reduces the appropriation, and frees up money to be sent elsewhere.


StrangeOldHermit77 t1_j2fbkjj wrote

You’re really poking the hornets nest with this one. Bike fanatics don’t like having their hobby questioned.


mart_nargy t1_j2fbzt1 wrote

I actually don’t mind bikes and wouldn’t mind a city that was more bike-friendly. I just think we need to address at least a dozen or so more critical problems before we accommodate their wishes.


overnighttoast t1_j2eglen wrote

I truly do not understand why this sub hates cars so much. Bike lanes are fine, but a product of gentrification that have only began popping up because the transplants were loud and white enough that the city listened to them and their needs. Meanwhile black residents who have continued to be pushed further and further away from the city center, many of whom have cars were never given the same consideration or benefits. And further, the anti-car crowd is just continuing the exile them from the city through this movement to get rid of all cars.

I've posted in this subreddit a lot and gotten a lot of down votes from people about traffic topics, but the fact is a lot of yall are angry, loud, and entitled.

Yes make the city more safe and accessible to pedestrians and bikers, but there's no need to simultaneously continue make it less accessible to people who don't live downtown or in the city center, and shit on them because their main mode of transportation is an automobile.

Folks with families may not be able to bike or use transit for family outings, they may not want to carry a cart down the street to get groceries for a family of four, they may not want to get everything delivered. Even if its noy a family, some people just want to visit their friends or shops across town without having to take an hour trip on the metro. These activities aren't the devil incarnate that many of yall seem to think they are.


Yithar t1_j2ekqns wrote

> I truly do not understand why this sub hates cars so much.

Some people will always drive, but we really should act to reduce cars and encourage people to take transit as much as possible. Because cars simply cost a lot in healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, congestion and pollution.

There have been recent posts about cars killing people, like this one or this one. So I imagine that contributes to the dislike of cars. Because less cars means less accidents.

"Although I do drive sometimes, I also acknowledge that cars are the source of a lot of problems in our cities."

Also, the very fact of the matter is that owning a car is expensive (loans, insurance, gas, repairs) so if we're talking about less well-off residents, we should be encouraging them to not use cars and we should do our best to make public transit better. Yes, sometimes transit takes longer, but if you want that convenience then you pay a high premium for that.


overnighttoast t1_j2elpty wrote

All of your points are fair but I'm talking about the many comments or posts that are essentially "f*** cars and all people who own them are stupid and bad people." And it particularly bugs me because many of these folks are non natives who ignore the gentrification point I made above.

I'm 100% for better infrastructure and safety but again you don't have to shit on people in a quest for that.

In terms of expenses, if youre in a paid off car, a neighborhood with permit and street parking etc, it's not that expensive to have a car. Particularly when you consider the convenience of it. Time is money, again I'll use groceries as an example, if the same trip is 30 minutes longer because you're walking or taking the bus, that's A LOT of time for people who work two jobs or have kids, or anything. Now insurance has gone up recently and sometimes gas does, but you're really not paying for repairs if your car is reliable. Again, technically a valid argument, but costs aren't just monetary, for folks who spend so much of their time at work or taking care of children the convenience of a car does add up.

Eta: thank you for responding so thoughtfully.


placeperson t1_j2fc77c wrote

> "f*** cars and all people who own them are stupid and bad people."

I would wager that the vast majority of people who explicitly say "fuck cars" would not say "all people who own them are stupid and bad people." Many of them probably own cars themselves. They just want to see cities designed with other forms of transportation prioritized.


Potential-Calendar t1_j2eqo2c wrote

You probably got downvoted because you are making disingenuous arguments that are easily debunked and clearly grasping for excuses to justify your own unwillingness to give up one of your 6 car lanes for safety.

First of all, there will still be plenty of car lanes on Connecticut, 2 in each direction. No one is stopping anyone from driving. But let’s pretend they are and take a look at the “concerns” about gentrification. Over 50% of pedestrian fatalities are in just wards 7 and 8. Poor and minority residents are the ones most in need of safe infrastructure. It’s also simply incorrect to pretend that bikes are for rich people and cars are for poor people. Of all commute mode types, driving is done by people with the highest income. Car ownership is correlated with income, with most households making above average income owning a car in DC, and half of lower income households owning one.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2ew4w7 wrote

There’s is absolutely no evidence to suggest that creating bike lanes results in the displacement of brown and black people. This is just the standard concern trolling that people find annoying.

The people who are advocating for better public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability are advocating for better accessibility for everyone, not just the city center. Countries like the Netherlands demonstrate how this works.

Furthermore, with your last paragraph, we have arrived at the standard talking points about gram gram, families having to make giant shopping trips. The first and most obvious rebuttal is that the overwhelming majority of drivers aren’t on the road for those reasons, they are on the road being they just kinda feel like it.

There are a number of great studies that I can link that delve specifically into why people actually get into their cars, which I can link if you are interested.

Finally, pretty much every city that has banned cars in major parts of their city has built in exceptions for people making deliveries, moving, emergency vehicles, etc so in the rare case you are actually using your vehicle, you will be able to do so without having a bunch of other people slowing you down with their pointless car trips.

It also goes without saying that investment public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability makes those options a faster and more efficient than sitting in traffic for an hour.

P.S There is a certain irony of someone who is defending Americas car obsession calling other people “angry, loud, and entitled”.


mastakebob t1_j2epl27 wrote

>because the transplants were loud and white enough that the city listened to them and their needs

Sooo... the process worked? That is how a democratic government is supposed to work. Voters (of all races) elected politicians who share their priorities. It would be very odd if the gov based their decisions on the electorate of 20yrs ago rather than the electorate of today.


NorseTikiBar t1_j2emevl wrote

> Meanwhile black residents who have continued to be pushed further and further away from the city center, many of whom have cars were never given the same consideration or benefits

The biggest cause for delays in constructing bike lanes for decades has been churchgoers from "Ward 9," and their influence has only diminished in the last 3 years. Wtf are you even talking about?


GaijinYankee t1_j2eogn2 wrote

Well said - there is a very loud group that openly believes that the city (and suburbs, which is particularly hilarious) needs to convert as many auto lanes to bike lanes as possible, as soon as possible. I follow the need for some amount of better bike infrastructure but it needs to be additive to auto / mass transit capacity, not simply a reallocation- only the former will make it easier to get around for everyone. Telling people "you need to buy a bike and start pedaling, or sit in worse traffic" is absurd, and it really does reek of privilege.

And this isn't really a huge deal in the broader picture - it's no secret that reddit is an echo chamber incubator that amplifies extremist views just because they're loudest - but it is disappointing that the /r/washingtondc moderators have allowed this circlejerk to become such a large part of this sub, especially when there is a specific subreddit that already exists for bikes + DC.


Illin-ithid t1_j2flzt5 wrote

>Telling people "you need to buy a bike and start pedaling"

I've never heard a bike lane person say this. I've only heard people against bike lanes say this is what being pro bike lane is. I just want to be able to bike places without being in constant danger of being run over by the absurdly bad drivers in the area.

Additionally every bike in a lane is a car not in the road. So transferring a car lane to a bike lane can actually make traffic and parking better and easier.


Mr5t1k t1_j2ecerl wrote

Even with bike lanes, the bikes still ride in the street and on the sidewalk. 🤷‍♂️


skiwhatwhat t1_j2efs36 wrote

When a bike lane is just a painted line on the road that cars frequently cross (almost hitting you) or block by parking, then yeah, the sidewalk can be the safer option. This is why we need more protected bike lanes.


SquishWindow t1_j2ej3sb wrote

Cyclists ride where they feel least likely to die. If there's something blocking a bike lane, yes, they will either bike in the street or on the sidewalk.


bull778 t1_j2ellrx wrote

Yea! They should just ride in that foot in between the parked cars and the oncoming right lane of traffic!

They should be like us car people. Did you see us car people got two of them dumb pEdEsTrIaNs last night! 2 for 1! Lol wah wah I was hit by a car and now I'm dead! Lol yea go us!


MrDangerPants t1_j2eoujm wrote

Extremely true for Capitol Hill/NoMA area. Bike lanes on every street, yet half the bikers on the sidewalk and half the runners in the bike lanes. Its madness


Mr5t1k t1_j2ep0zn wrote

This is where I reside so at least someone else sees what I do.


morningwoodman1 t1_j2ei1tw wrote

No more bike lanes. You are messing up traffic. Waste if tax payers money.


bull778 t1_j2elsow wrote

You fatties driving cars everywhere, we are left paying your health care bills. Please consider us taxpayers.


morningwoodman1 t1_j2em81j wrote

You are a reticular person. That is the lamest thing I have ever heard.


bull778 t1_j2enjru wrote

Better lame than fat and tax on the rest of us. If you want to avail yourself of arguments in furtherance of the public good, be careful for the bell tolling for you...


sl8rfan2 t1_j2ellno wrote

We are traffic. Troll.


morningwoodman1 t1_j2elx51 wrote

NHSTA study shows 9 out of 10 encounters between a car and a cyclist is the cyclist's fault.


mastakebob t1_j2eqjxa wrote

Got a source for that stat? I can't find anything via Google...


midweastern t1_j2dwn77 wrote

Unpopular opinion: The best way to obtain community buy-in for additional (protected, where able) bicycle lanes need to include the construction of new parking that is both affordable and accessible.


Suburbs-suck t1_j2dx3qh wrote

Yeah there’s a reason why that opinion is unpopular.

America has subsidized cars enough.


A_Crazy_Canadian t1_j2dz7hr wrote

This is a bad idea for a very simple reason. Adding more parking would mean destroying the things people travel to making the parking useless. Look around Dupont circle and you will not find building, parks, yards, etc that people would rather replace with parking. The relatively easy places to put parking: sides of roads, underground, and empty lots are gone or have much more valuable alternatives. Any new parking would involve destroying the things people like in Dupont or cartoonish expensive so it doesn't make sense.

In the end its driven by a dead simple fact, private cars don't work in cities. They require a lot of land for roads/parking relative to the number of trips they provide. Switching areas used for cars to bikes and public transit allows many more people to get where they want to go and tend to be safer, cheaper, and better for the environment.


midweastern t1_j2e1gko wrote

If we can take parked cars off the road, I'm for it. The fact of the matter is that long-term parking options in DC are so expensive that street parking has become a primary way people store their vehicles. It can be comically difficult to find street parking that isn't blocks away from the place where you actually live; if you take that away, what then? The best way to get everybody on board imo would be to ensure that there is a place for these vehicles in an off-street location that doesn't charge $200+ a month. Resident motorists don't have to search/hold coveted parking spots and have a dedicated place to store their vehicle and cyclists get their bike lanes in what used to be street parking spaces. I don't see how something like that wouldn't be a reasonable compromise.

All new residential constructions should have some space allocated for parking; it doesn't need to be on a 1:1 resident-parking spot ratio, but new houses should have at least one space for off-street parking and all new apartment/condo buildings should have underground lots.


Zwillium t1_j2e3trz wrote

>The fact of the matter is that long-term parking options in DC are so expensive that street parking has become a primary way people store their vehicles.

Street parking is incredibly subsidized and pushes the external costs of driving to everyone else.

The solution isn't to subsidize more parking, it's to remove the parking subsidies in the first place.


spkr4thedead51 t1_j2e2ldt wrote

The best way is to provide comprehensive transportation options that remove the need for personal vehicles for the majority of people


midweastern t1_j2e2xc9 wrote

While I agree, this is frankly impossible for anyone who may need to travel outside the confines of DC for any reason.


spkr4thedead51 t1_j2e3xm8 wrote

Hi, I'm a person without a car who lives in DC and leaves the city regularly without issue


Suburbs-suck t1_j2e5de8 wrote

This is a classic example of “when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

The degree to which people have subsidized cars is astronomical. If anything the problem is that parking isn’t expensive enough. If having a car is that important to you than it’s time you start paying your fair share.


A_Crazy_Canadian t1_j2ee6aq wrote

> The fact of the matter is that long-term parking options in DC are so expensive that street parking has become a primary way people store their vehicles. It can be comically difficult to find street parking that isn't blocks away from the place where you actually live; if you take that away, what then?

Then people stop having cars or have fewer. That is a major goal for a lot of us, getting rid of the cars that make DC worse. Owning and using a car should be expensive and inconvenient order to discourage their use due to the damage cars do to the city.

> All new residential constructions should have some space allocated for parking; it doesn't need to be on a 1:1 resident-parking spot ratio, but new houses should have at least one space for off-street parking and all new apartment/condo buildings should have underground lots.

Why does there government to mandate very expensive underground parking? If people want parking more than it costs to build developers will build that and charge more to make money. If the customers don't want need parking and the developers know that why should they be forced to build and residents forced to pay for something they don't want.


davos_16 t1_j2faxmn wrote

My two cents is that a lot of buildings with basements/underground parking tend to actually be well built and can be renovated for a longer lifespan than the easier to build and cheap wood structures I see popping up around here. I’m someone who drives and also bikes regularly so I’m for rationality in having both bike lanes and some parking requirements for large developments.

It’s quite disingenuous to think that all DC residents work in DC because my metro ride to work in Reston would be 1.5 hours versus a 35 minutes drive.


SnortingCoffee t1_j2e3v9y wrote

Counterpoint: when installing a new bike lane, take out additional parking and add trees to make the streets more bike-ped friendly (i.e., better for the people who actually live there) and lower the temperature a bit in summer.


elBenhamin t1_j2e0wl8 wrote

By "community" are you also considering the broader population of cyclists, pedestrians, and bus-riders? After all, THEY are the ones paying the true cost of subsidized parking via longer, costlier, unhealthier, and more dangerous commutes. Not motorists.


Potential-Calendar t1_j2e24yy wrote

I think you are on to something. Parking is a bad policy, but as far as community buy in goes it has merits. However the question is which community you want buy in from. DC has a large percent of car-free households and a much lower vehicle per capita rate than Maryland. The ward 3 candidate opposed to the project just lost the election. Most of the complaints about making it hard to commute in or whatever are from people in Maryland. Maybe there’s some value in listening to them, but they don’t live in DC, don’t vote for their politicians, and don’t have to deal with the 6 lanes of highway noise going through their neighborhood. I think DC might just not care about their buy in at all.


midweastern t1_j2e3grc wrote

I'm not even referring to people commuting into DC, but rather the people who reside in DC and rely upon street parking for their vehicle storage. Give them an off-street parking option that takes away the need to hunt for an on-street spot that isn't $200/month and I think you'll find opposition to replacing their coveted parking spots with bike lanes dissipate.


SpeedysComing t1_j2ebn7b wrote

Nah, why continue to subsidize cheap parking for people's personal automobiles? If you can't properly store your own cumbersome vehicle, why should those costs be passed on to the public at the expense of safer streets? $200 / month might start getting closer to the market rate. It's time for drivers to pay their fair share.


firewarner t1_j2fmcq8 wrote

Lol why the hell should I have to subsidize your parking spot??


9throwaway2 t1_j2el8u9 wrote

eh, there are zero negative election results from building bike lanes in DC. the only people who seem to really care, don't live in DC or face the consequences from being run over.