« Check out City Sports and help WABA | Main | Lazy Blogging: PUI »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Look, I think there should be some local control on issues at the margins, but frankly, who cares whether local residents want bike lanes in SE, or whether local residents want sidewalks in NW. Both of these things are public goods, and they should be installed for on their own merits.

Alternately, if the neighborhoods east of the river want to become exurban Sprawlsvilles, let them secede and join PG county, where they'll find like-minded policies.

Too late:


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the argument against bike lanes on Good Hope Road that where there is parking, the bike lane would be in the door zone, and where there is no parking it isn't really needed because there is so much room anyway? Maybe put a bike lane where parking is illegal anyway and then go to sharrows where parking is allowed?

Jim, all I know is what was in the GGW post and there the position is that "major roadways, such as Good Hope Road SE, may not [be] appropriate for bike lanes". I don't know anything about parking. But if parking is the issue, that is something that can be changed.

Has anyone here actually biked on Good Hope? Do you guys do it frequently? Do you know a lot of people who do?

I just hope the sentiment here is not a desire to go into neighborhoods where no one really wants or needs to bike (say, because they live on the side of a 300 foot hill), and make residents give up their parking so we cyclists can more easily access the H/B trail when we go there once a month (nice as that would be--biking in that area is pretty rough now). That sort of attitude makes unneccesary enemies, which will make it harder to win more important battles to make the area more bikeable.

Anyone want to reassure me with an estimate of how many people bike there now, and how many more would bike there with lanes? (I mean, those are BIG hills).

I suppose I'm biased (because I like riding hills), but they're not THAT big!

I guess there's two sides to the argument here: "build it and they will come" versus "there's not a demonstrated need." If you can demonstrate, somehow, that there's a need, well then we're talking.

Which brings another point: how is need demonstrated? It's an honest question - I'm not leading to anything here. I'm just wondering - does somebody from DDOT show up on a roadway and count bikes and then assume all those cyclists would like to have a bike lane?

I've biked it a couple of times, but no I don't know anyone who does it often.

My sentiment is that people east of the river deserve nice places to bike and the ability to bike just as much as people west of the river. That DDOT has made a goal of doubling the number of people who bike commute and getting there will probably require getting more Ward 7/8 cyclists.

That few people bike there now is either proof that facilities aren't needed or that they are. I'm not looking to make enemies though.

I'd bet few people bike that hill now, but that more would if there were an uphill bike lane. And some people would move off the sidewalk in both directions if it were made more friendly.

It's funny because sometimes when people see the bike map and few bike lanes east of the river they think it's some conspiracy to keep the facilities in the "nice" part of town. And then when bike lanes are suggested, it's seen as another conspiracy.

Chris, on Penn Ave they did, but normally no. It would be very resource intensive to study every street for bike lanes. DDOT used a lot of things (survey results, Bicycle LOS studies, eyeballing the map, etc...) to create the bike plan. They don't hold to that plan 100%, but generally they follow it. I think the plan shows bike lanes on Good Hope, but don't have access to it now.

I think DDOT sees themselves as making sure than anyone who wants to can ride a bike safely in the city and that they not be expected to go far out of their way to do so unless safety requires it. I would not put this road in that category.

OK, thanks. That's interesting.

(Of course, I would quibble with the "safely" part, as I don't think bike lanes guarantee much safety, and in some cases are less safe then no lanes, but I get the point, and I can simply replace "safely" with "easier to get around" or some such word and deal with it...)

Besides socioeconomics and the big hills, I'd wager that low biking modeshare is the lack of destinations sites on that side of the river (much more residential), the lack of destination facilities (like a marquee MUT, Fort Circle Trail doesn't count), and most importantly, the awful existing bridges over the Anacostia to get beyond the immediate neighborhood. All three of these are being addressed, and even if the community doesn't use the bike now, the 11th Street Bridge and ART are going to bring demand from outside in. I think its inevitable that when these projects come online, some "inside out" latent demand will come to the fore, and some folks will seek useful secondary connections to those facilities.

Besides, no one will lose any parking, or GP travel lanes. No one ever does.

Is that true - that there's *never* been any general purpose travel lanes lost in the city by putting in bike lanes? On a practical level, I don't care so much since I don't really drive a car too much, but I'm not sure I believe that's true.

It has happened (on 15th street for example) but it has been rare.

"Besides, no one will lose any parking, or GP travel lanes. No one ever does."

intended more as a sulky throwaway line than a statement of fact. the withering husks of the 7th/9th St NW bus/bike lanes are another counterexample.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader