I'll add a short comment. If there's anything worse than no bike lane, it's a bike lane that's routinely and illegally commandeered by drivers. I'm speaking of the dedicated, wide bike/bus lanes on 7th and 9th Streets downtown. I think that the lanes on residential streets work pretty well, both for bike travel and as a traffic calming measurement. Narrow travel lanes are a sub-conscious signal to drivers to slow down. I can hug the white lane on those to avoid the car doors. Look for occupied cars. Unoccupied cars (generally) can't hurt you. Drivers should also be aware that opening a car door into traffic is a violation of the DC traffic code.

I think thay it is a matter of getting use to bike lanes. Yhere was no education about them when they were introduced, nor is there one even yet. There is also a lack of enforcement.

I agree with Paul that the bus /bike lanes on 7th & 9th are particularly populated by scofflaws.

ne sc

Mr. Wells,

I'm 100% supportive of DC creating cycle tracks like those that exist in the advanced bicycling countries to include Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany. In addition to this, blue bike lanes that proceed through intersections are needed to highlight locations with high bicycle traffic and make the path that cyclists take more highly visible to motorists. We in Arlington plan to do a pilot soon, why not join us?

Thank you for making DC better for bicycling and improving our environment.

First, a correction. You write, "Most cyclists argued that they share the road and they have a right to travel in the car lanes when a bike lane isn’t present." Actually, cyclists have the right to travel in a traffic lane (not a "car lane," it's for all traffic) even when a bike lane is present. There is nothing in DC law that says cyclists have to use bike lanes if they are provided.

With that out of the way, I'll say that your proposal doesn't address the real problem with bike lanes in DC. The problem is poor implementation. Bike lanes only work if they direct cyclists to where they would ride anyway in the absence of lane striping. If the road is too narrow for cyclists and drivers to safely ride side by side, they have to go single file. Painting a stripe on the road does nothing to make the road any wider, yet this simple fact of geometry is apparently lost on the folks at DDOT. Many of the new bike lanes they are painting are on roads that are clearly not wide enough for an additional lane. But in a spate of wishful thinking they are creating dangerous facilities rather than admitting the truth. For example, I recently rode the newly painted lanes on E street NW. I was so stunned by the lanes that I got off my bike and measured -- 30 inches in spots. This is exactly half the recommended minimum size of 60 inches when parking is present. Would DDOT ever paint a car lane that was half of the minimum width?

For cyclists, a bike lane like this is worse than nothing -- it's dangerous to use, it encourages dangerous passing on the part of drivers, and it creates ill-will against cyclists who do the sensible thing and refuse to use it.

The new bike lanes at Thomas Circle are even worse, as they provide no way for cyclists to navigate the circle -- they only go from one entry to the next. They run completely counter to recognized professional standards for bike lanes; the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices says bike lanes should not be painted within 100 feet of an intersection, and the circle is one giant intersection. In addition, when DDOT put the bike lanes on Thomas Circle, they illegally put up no bicycle signs on Massachusetts Avenue -- DDOT has no authority to close roads to cyclists. The net result of these "improvements" is far diminished utility for cyclists.

The problem with the proposed design is that it does nothing to make the road any wider. If anything, the bike lanes will need to be wider than they currently are in order to be safe. With cars on one side you still have the risk of people opening doors into the bike lane, but you also have the additional risk of pedestrians stepping into the lane to cross the street or to get to parked cars. At intersections, these types of lanes have real problems. Cyclists will be shielded from traffic by parked cars, and thus have a greater risk of getting hit by turning cars. Also, how will cyclists turn left from these lanes?

I think the whole topic has to keep in perspective the purpose of making any kind of lane for a bike: To get more people on bikes as a means of transportation in the city and out of cars, and to improve the level of safety for those bikers.rnrnThe bike lanes as they exist in DC now, in my opinion, just don\'t work. Cars park in them, bike riders have to go into traffic, and then there is more car/bike safety issues as a result. There are many cyclists who simply don't use the current bike lanes at all, due to the car door safety issue. As an avid city and suburban cyclist myself, I have tried hundreds of times to get others to bike in the city, and the number one reason I get from people who say they don\'t ride is the perceived lack of safety in the bike lanes and on the streets in general. Simply put, if the biking lanes were perceived to be safer, more cyclists would ride our streets.rnrnThings brings me to the suggestion of completely separated bike lanes where parked cars are away from the curb, and bikes lanes are near the curb. This type of bike lane exists in some of the most successful cycling cities in Europe, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Copenhagen recently has managed to produce a situation where 40 percent of all transportation trips done inside the city center are done on bicycles - a change that came from a previously completely car dominated city. This has been in large part accomplished with just such completely separated bike lanes as suggested. In places where the street width cannot accommodate this, the parked car lane has been removed and replaced with a much wider bike lane, and structure to keep cars from parking in this bike lane.rnrnI feel that if you make bike lanes much safer than they are now, you will see an increase in the number of cyclists. However, this has to exist around the city, not just in a very few select streets - cyclists, like drivers, want to get from point A to point B without having to g o too far out of their way to use these bike lanes. In places around the city where a completely separated bike lane is not possible, at least wider bike lanes, painted a different color, and enforcement against cars in those lanes would help.

Councilmember Wells, This is a fantastic idea and I'm really glad you are investigating it. I brought up the same idea at the 17th Street Streetscape project in Dupont Circle, and I'd like to see DDOT consider these bike lanes in all streets that are being redone. Separated bike lanes protect cyclists and eliminate double parking in the lanes, and you and the other commenters have said. At the 17th Street Streetscape meeting a few people questioned whether the curb that goes between the bike lane and the parking would interfere with deliveries, but judicious use of gaps in that curb should easily address any such concerns.

I like the idea of putting bike lanes between parked cars the sidewalk, but I'm wondering how to best deal with intersections and driveways. How do you ensure the bicyclists are visible to turning traffic? How do bicyclists make turns at intersections where they have to cross traffic?

See my website link above: This is what happens when you put in separated bike lanes. Suddenly, it's actually reasonable and praticable to ride a bike in the city, and so people do. Cars where never mainstream until we cleared all the cars, horses, trolleys, and pedestrians out of their way. The safety and popularity of cycling is a function of the quality of the infrastructure you invest in it. And cycling infrastructure costs a fraction what it does for autos. FWI - Copehagen did this for just $15 Million dollars. But now that they realized how much money it is SAVING them, they are going to chuck in an extra 75 Million.