« Contributory Negligence Bill officially dead | Main | FedEx's "It is a daily challenge to find parking space," claim debunked in one photo »


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

Beautiful picture. Nasty bike lane in the door zone though.

They should really bury 395 and 295 while they're building the tunnel for CSX. Or at least make sure the whole route is in a trench and put a deck on the trench the same way they plan to build above Union Station.

Most bike lanes in the city are partially in the door zone. I'm mostly okay with this since a lane is better than no lane.

Experienced cyclists know not to ride in the door-zone portion, but what I find especially puzzling is that the designers apparently (judging by this illustration and others I've seen) expect cyclists to actually ride in the door zone. Which means they are either clueless or they are having someone else do the illustrations and then aren't checking them.

The only safe way to ride in the bike lane pictured is on the far left edge of it, but a novice cyclist, following the example of the illustration, is going to have to learn the hard way. So I'd say the illustration encourages unsafe riding and is irresponsible.

Where is "7th Street between 4th Street and Maine Avenue"?

That's straight out of the SW plan. But it references the MoveDC plan which shows a bike lane on I street from 7th/Maine to Virginia Avenue. So I think that's what they're talking about. You should submit that as a comment on the plan.

That's an illustration of the already extant 4th St SW street and bike lane, between M and I, between the two DC government buildings. You can see the SW-Waterfront metro canopy in the left rear of the image.

M Street is like a highway, I don't feel comfortable at all biking down M.

@DE, I agree that these kind of bike lanes lure unsuspecting bicyclists into riding too close to parked cars. Some cities paint diagonal lines on the pavement that look sort of like open car doors to warn cyclists of the risk. My problem is that this particular bike lane looks like it's almost entirely in the door zone. Cyclists wouldn't be able to ride around an open car door without being partly in the travel lane. Of course it's hard to tell that from a drawing, but my rule of thumb is that there has to be at least 14' of combined width of the parking lane + bike lane. Since the parking area looks to be 7' wide, I don't think it's 14' total.

@Jack, These lanes are even worse than the rendering, at least the part from E to the Mall, where I ride. Not only is the lane entirely in the door zone, they actually took out the inside stripe of the lane because they made it so close to the curb that every car was parking over the line.

If the entirety of the lane is in the door zone, then a cyclist really has to ride outside the lane. I really don't understand planning a lane that, when used as planned, would lead to collisions and injuries.

I guess I am sympathetic to planners putting in lanes that are partly in the door zone because of space considerations since you can ride the edge of the lane, but a lane that is entirely in the zone is worse than worthless. (I'll look into adding a comment to the plan.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader