« How the Purple Line will change, and improve, trails in suburban Maryland | Main | Women's History Month: First mention of bicycles in DC Papers from 1869. Women, Velocipedes and Bilegular Garments. »


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

Vision Zero!

My experience in DC is that if a bike lane isn't separated or protected it really just becomes a turn lane or a double parking lane for cars. This is especially true on busy streets like Florida Ave.

Anyone else confused by DDOt's logic?

I read this as: Because of heavy traffic at a specific point in the day (we happen to choose as rush hour), it is important to not dedicate any more space to pedestrians or bikes (because we do not consider them in our measurement of capacity).

Because pedestrians and bikes don't feel safe using Florida avenue very much, we don't feel it's important to provide space to them.

It is *great* that bike needs are addressed for the diagonal avenues of DC.

But why should bicyclists settle with unprotected bike lanes when we know that these are the ones to make a difference to safety and increase in use?

DDOT is using the category of bike lanes for anything between standard (paint on the road) "bike lanes" to protected "cycle tracks".

Clearly there is a need for pedestrians and bicyclists to correct the record at DDOT to ensure that priorities are being targeted to real protected paths.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader