Submit comments on the Eastern Downtown Protected Bike Lane Study

Here's the link. I've heard they force Leif Dormsjo to memorize each comment. It's in his job description. I haven't yet decided which one I like best, but I've narrowed it down to 1 and 2. 

Comments

[biketowork]

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 1 and 2? I would love to read your thoughts on each plan's pros and cons. At the last community meeting most people who were pro-bike lane were in favor of #3.

[DE]

Alternative 1 seems to have riders in the door zone northbound north of NY Avenue. Not the end of the world since most riders may be used to this by now, but it also sets itself up for the inevitable people parking in the bike lane. Anyway, wrote in with my 2 cents. Thanks for publicizing the link.

[Zack Rules]

I am torn between Alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 has more curb cuts (23) including some for busy parking garages and a fire station, and in my mind, more curb cuts equals more conflicts and encourages more parking in the bike lane. Alternative 4 has only 14 curb cuts and would have bike signals throughout, creating very conflicts, and would be the safest. Alternative 3 has the added bonus of removing some Sunday parking though. Neither lane has an easy connection the Mall though.

[washcycle]

I like 1 and 2 better because there just seems to be less conflict. With a bi-directional bike facility like Alt 3, it's harder to get the light timing right and it means riding head-on towards buses and cyclists, separated by a buffer on one side and nothing on the other. Headlights on the buses will be an issue in the winter I fear.

[fongfong]

Being that I ride along with my kid, Alt 2 has it hands down. Complete separation without a risk of any head-ons from that texting CABI rider.

The best part is that the graphics on pages 20 and 23 agree with this. On page 20, the parent and child are riding happily and separately, with each one blissed out and chill. On page 23, check out the parent, who is almost leaning forward to ward off the child from wandering into the almost certain head-on collision.

My work here is done.

[drumz]

I'd probably go 2, 1, 4, 3.

I still say with 2 you could possibly have some permanent back-in parking that would be a win-win-lose for cyclists and local parkers while you'd lose out on at least one rush hour lane (but rush hour lanes in DC are usually de facto bike lanes because you can never drive consistently in one because there's always someone parked regardless of the time).

[jeffB]

I expressed my opinion to DDOT that I do not want more 15th St style bi-directional bikes lanes.

They agreed that head-on cyclist conflicts are an issue but said they hope, if they do more, to be able to make the lanes wider. Note this still leaves conflict with turning cars not expecting on-coming cyclist traffic.

I live in the study area and anything that can calm traffic along 6th would be most welcome.