Greater Greater Washington

Anita Bonds wants a "moratorium" on bike lanes

At a forum last night, Councilmember Anita Bonds advocated for a "moratorium" on any bike lanes in residential neighborhoods, and also for rules requiring all bicycles to have license plates. According to tweets by Keith Ivey, she opposes the lanes because of the impact on parking.

Bonds' campaign put out a few tweets in response, to say that this was "a plan that was announced to [the] public" as "a safety issue for cyclists." She would just block the lanes on "one-lane" streets until the city has a plan for a network of lanes across the city.

I emailed Bonds spokesperson David Meadows this morning but had not heard back by press time. I will update this article if I hear more. Update: Meadows responded with the following statement:

Councilmember Bonds supports bike lanes throughout the major corridors of the District. She is not in favor of dedicated bike lanes on narrow streets within residential neighborhoods. She believes we need to have an up-to-date compre­hensive bike lane plan that all residents are aware of. She is scheduling and is anxious to talk with Shane Farthing and others to continue the discussion.
The discussion last night came after a question about license plates for cyclists. Bonds also would support requiring license plates, while her main challengers Nate Bennett-Fleming and John Settles would not. According to tweets by Ivey, the question came from a member of the audience who was worried about being hit by cyclists.

It's definitely true that there are a few reckless cyclists who sometimes hit pedestrians, just as there are some reckless drivers, walkers, boaters, and so on. All should stop, and we need enforcement to ensure that roads are safe for everyone. But many people pointed out on Twitter that license plates will probably not do much to solve this problem; bike lanes, actually, do a lot more by giving cyclists a place to ride in the road that's not on the sidewalk.

Update: Bonds' office sent WABA another statement following the significant outcry from people dismayed at this news:

Councilmember Bonds has not called for a city-wide moratorium on the establishment of new bike lanes, she is pro bike and pro dedicated bike lanes. Bonds supports bike lanes throughout the major corridors of the District, however she is not in favor of dedicated bike lanes on narrow streets within residential neighborhoods until an updated comprehensive plan is drafted. Bonds believes the city needs to have an up-to-date comprehensive bike lane plan that all residents are aware of; likewise, she is aware that Move DC is working on a draft bike lane plan an looks forward to reviewing it and meeting with relevant stakeholders to continue this discussion.
See more of the tweets and arguments about this issue in this Storify:

David Alpert is the founder and editor-in-chief of Greater Greater Washington. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Why is the time of the post no longer part of articles?

by selxic on Mar 21, 2014 10:32 am • linkreport

Can't wait to vote her out of office.

by BTA on Mar 21, 2014 10:37 am • linkreport

Wow. I don't think any elected official even in FFX would take that position, let alone in ArlCo or City of Alexandria. Glad I live in progressive NoVa ;)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 10:38 am • linkreport

Oh FFS, Anita.

by JDS32 on Mar 21, 2014 10:42 am • linkreport

As opposed to the de facto moratorium that Gray put on expansion of bike lanes?

(Yes, there's been some progress but it's been agonizingly slow.)

But you've got to love the catch 22 as her sensible proposal. We shouldn't have bike lanes anywhere until we have bike lanes everywhere.

by drumz on Mar 21, 2014 10:43 am • linkreport

There's far more money for her Fort Myer Construction in paving over acres of grass for illegal unpermitted parking lots, like the one they did by cover a night, one block from Anita's house. That woman is a profoundly bad citizen.

by Sydney on Mar 21, 2014 10:45 am • linkreport

For anyone who doesn't think this city can go bass ackwards into the 1980s again over the course of an election or two, this article is for you.

by aaa on Mar 21, 2014 10:59 am • linkreport

This idea from Bonds makes as much sense as Wells' proposal to create an office to deal w/church parking. Both were definitely being huge pander bears but Bonds has him beat here.

I voted for her the last time but will casting one for Settles this time. Nate doesn't strike me as being ready to hold a city-wide office. Just don't think his cross-appeal translate into actual ability to get things done.

by HogWash on Mar 21, 2014 11:07 am • linkreport

Ah, I see, she's going to stop the bike lanes *for my safety*. That makes it alright then.

The license plate thing is something you only generally see mentioned by trolls on WaPo cycling articles. This is tea-party-level crazy.

by DE on Mar 21, 2014 11:10 am • linkreport

She may want to do a cost-benefit analysis of her license plate idea, including talking to people involved in the late, unlamented bicycle registration law we used to have in DC.

I may have been the only person who ever actually complied with it.

by Crickey7 on Mar 21, 2014 11:16 am • linkreport

Hogwash, I'm very curious: what was your rationale for voting for Bonds in the special election?

by dcmike on Mar 21, 2014 11:21 am • linkreport

Crickey: I dutifully got my bike registered when I moved to DC. So that's 2 people :)

by David Alpert on Mar 21, 2014 11:23 am • linkreport

This is what happens when we split the vote between two good candidates.

If we can get someone good to run against her, she is toast.

by Kyle-w on Mar 21, 2014 11:23 am • linkreport

Crickey: No. I thought it would be smart to register, in case the bike were ever stolen. After the officer at the local DC fire house pounded the registration number onto my bottom bracket shell, the chief there summoned all the other firemen on duty, to show off "How not to do it."

Maybe the cost process new registration can be covered by more enforcement of fines on scofflaw drivers.

by Sydney on Mar 21, 2014 11:25 am • linkreport

@BTA - sadly, I think we are ONCE AGAIN going to split the anti-Bonds' vote and she'll sneak through again. What did she win with in 2013: 30% or something crazy like that? This time around, Settles will probably get 25, Fleming 35 and Bonds 40. Just like 2013 all over again. I HOPE I'm wrong!

by Shipsa01 on Mar 21, 2014 11:25 am • linkreport

Excited to cast my ballot for Nate Bennett-Fleming!

by STM on Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am • linkreport

So what happens to Capital Bikeshare, Anita?

by lou on Mar 21, 2014 11:44 am • linkreport

@Sydney

This is the second time I have seen mention of an "illegal unpermitted parking lot" near Bonds' house. Can you link to more information about this? It seems like it should be a big deal and I would like to know additional details.

Note: I'm not trying to be nitpicky and I don't care for Bonds, but I am curious about this specific circumstance.

by Ampersand on Mar 21, 2014 11:53 am • linkreport

@DCMike, I didn't know much about and wasn't particularly impressed with any of the candidates. I preferred John Settles but he dropped out. Anita became the default choice more because of her institutional support and I liked the fact that she wasn't looking for sparing partners on the council.

by HogWash on Mar 21, 2014 12:04 pm • linkreport

I'll vote for anyone but Bonds. Nate and Settles both strike me as decent options. Nate seemed nice and engaging when I met him and I remember liking most of settles responses last round of elections.

by BTA on Mar 21, 2014 12:23 pm • linkreport

John Settles is a cyclist.

Eugene Puryear wants to expand bike lanes to encourage more affordable safer transit options: http://youtu.be/pmQQF7Z1zYE?t=30s

Get Bonds out of that seat, there are much better people to replace her.

by @ShawingtonTimes on Mar 21, 2014 12:27 pm • linkreport

No more bike lanes....until we have a "bike lane plan that ALL residents are aware of"...brilliant Anita! In one fell swoop she set the bar impossibly high...if anyone one person isn't familiar with the bike plan, no bike lane. Brilliant...much better than I like bikes, just not on my street.

by joe on Mar 21, 2014 1:03 pm • linkreport

Brilliant idea! They don't have any narrow streets or quiet residential neighborhoods in cities like Amsterdam.

by DAG on Mar 21, 2014 1:05 pm • linkreport

It's just good ol' common sense, DAG. After all bikes are way wider than cars.

by BTA on Mar 21, 2014 1:11 pm • linkreport

Settles even rode to the debate sponsored by The City Paper last week. He "gets" it and gets my vote.

by Voter on Mar 21, 2014 1:11 pm • linkreport

Settles get my vote too. Big biker guy and thoughtful on the affordable housing issue. Vote based a lot on him being able to get things done. Nice as Nate is, I'm not sure councilmembers will listen to him.

Meanwhile, conservative author goes nuts about Alexandria bike lanes: http://spectator.org/blog/58438/alexandria-bike-wars

by fongfong on Mar 21, 2014 1:43 pm • linkreport

Yes, Anita, we got it. You are not Adrian Fenty.

by Crickey7 on Mar 21, 2014 1:52 pm • linkreport

Instead of taking the time to educate herself on an issue, see if there is a problem that can be handled by legislation, and then move forward on that, Bonds just spouts a crazy idea at a forum, then decides she should start looking into whether anything exists that addresses the issue she came up with.

Oh, look, the city has been doing bike planning for years now? Who'd have thunk it?

This isn't leadership—it's reactionary, it's throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

My god, DC, you can do so much better than her.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Mar 21, 2014 1:53 pm • linkreport

As a cyclist in DC, I actually dislike bike lanes (as they are implemented here). There is no buffer from people in cars opening doors. I will always ride at least a doors length away from parked cars, which often puts me outside of a bike lane. If a bike lane exists and I'm not riding in it, I get so many people shouting at me from their car windows. So many people are convinced that I am breaking the law for riding in the "car lane" when a bike lane exists (and often even if there is no bike lane). So in conclusion, I'm actually fine with eliminating bike lanes. Just as long as everyone on the road understands that cyclists will be "in their way", and they're cool with that. That's just me though

by Atlas on Mar 21, 2014 2:03 pm • linkreport

I'm likely voting Settles as well. Bennett-Fleming and Settles both seem like good candidates, but I've seen a lot of people saying (unfounded) negative stuff about Nate's lack of previous experiences, and that's never a good sign for a candidate's prospects in DC.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2014 2:12 pm • linkreport

"There is no buffer from people in cars opening doors."

The bike lane in DC I use most is eye st se-sw. There is hardly ever anyone opening doors into the bike lane on it in AM rush hour, and seldom in PM rush hour, and I easily anticipate and avoid them. Note that for slower riders its easier to deal with door zone issues, and harder to ride in the general travel lane.

I've also parked next to bike lanes in DC (notably East Capital Street) and been able to open the driver side door without it going into the bike lane - not sure if thats a better position bike lane, we park more carefully than most, or its cause we have an modestly sized car and not an SUV.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 2:12 pm • linkreport

I can personally take or leave bike lanes, though I don't dislike them. I do recognize that they are absolutely critical in expanding cycling's modal share, and I in turn benefit from the safety in numbers effect.

by Crickey7 on Mar 21, 2014 2:20 pm • linkreport

Anita Bonds has been with the District government since its founding back in the 70s. That she doesn't know that DDOT has a comprehensive bike plan demonstrates a shocking ignorance that should disqualify her for elected office.

by Joe Flood on Mar 21, 2014 2:41 pm • linkreport

Wells' proposal to create an office to deal w/church parking.

Just the set the record straight, this was not his proposal. His proposal was "to create a cabinet-level position in his administration to cover church issues like parking." So that's fewer people (1) covering a larger subject matter.

Not that it matters since the poll released today shows Wells has basically no chance.

Speaking of polling, has there been any polling done for the at-large race?

And on bike lanes, I asked DDOT if they had any information on doorings on streets with bike lanes compared to those without or before/after. They said that they had spent some time looking at it, and hadn't seen anything to lead them to believe that bike lanes were resulting in more doorings. On one street (and I'm making this numbers up to capture my recollection of the magnitude of the issue), bike traffic was up 25% and doorings were up 28% or something like that. A slightly larger increase in doorings, which could be just noise or some other issue.

by David C on Mar 21, 2014 2:46 pm • linkreport

AWalkerintheCity

It only takes one door to ruin your entire day. Hundreds of cyclists with thousands of opportunities for doors to open on them, and it's going to happen to people. It's also not always as easy to anticipate as one might think.

Like Atlas, I am careful to ride at the very edge of the bike lane when there are cars present. I also get the occasional horn blown at me and worse, but if I get doored, I think it's my own fault.

Yet I still like bike lanes for some reason; I just feel free to not use them when safety dictates.

by DE on Mar 21, 2014 3:22 pm • linkreport

dave C - on doorings

thats like, I suspect, because the vast majority of all cyclists are not comfortable taking the lane (even in city streets) and ride to the right even where dooring is a potential problem. From the POV of a "strong and fearless" cyclist is quite comfortable taking the lane even on relatively fast and heavily trafficed routes, the changes of getting doored absent the bike lane are near zero, I guess. For the majority of enthusiastic and confident, I think, a heavily trafficed and or fast road means riding to the right, in the door zone, bike lane or no - and it does at least provide some "protection" against being sideswiped. So our differing biking constituencies come into play (many S&F cyclists welcome facilities better suited to others, for the sake of safety in numbers, but I guess others discount that)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 3:23 pm • linkreport

"It only takes one door to ruin your entire day. Hundreds of cyclists with thousands of opportunities for doors to open on them, and it's going to happen to people. It's also not always as easy to anticipate as one might think."

I do not disagree. But someone riding at say 7 MPH (think on a heavy hybrid or a commuter, and not that strong) if a door opens they are likely to have time to avoid or even stop. It would have to open right in front of them to cause a collision - different odds from someone going 15MPH or more. ANd if they DO hit it, the consequences are less.

"Like Atlas, I am careful to ride at the very edge of the bike lane when there are cars present. I also get the occasional horn blown at me and worse, but if I get doored, I think it's my own fault."

I also tend to ride on the left of the bike lane in such situations. Thats differnt from avoiding them altogether.

"Yet I still like bike lanes for some reason; I just feel free to not use them when safety dictates."

And I agree with that, and of course that is the law. It would be good to have signs that say "bicyclists may take full lane" on roads that have bike lanes where driver harrasment of riders no in the bike lane has become an issue.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 3:27 pm • linkreport

Yea allow me to clarify. I love being in a city with bike lanes, because they improve the culture on a whole. They encourage people to ride who otherwise wouldn't. Increased ridership improves awareness and safety. And all that stuff. I am just saying (from a rather selfish perspective) that I prefer riding single lane roads that don't have bike lanes. Maybe its just me though.

by Atlas on Mar 21, 2014 3:44 pm • linkreport

I think it varies with the rider and with the road. I want a big tent cycling community that includes those who are more reliant on seg infra, to those who sometimes use it, to those who never use it.

I do think that as a matter of policy, the approach CM Bonds seems to be saying would be bad for cycling, even if in a few instances some drivers will be more willing to share the general travel lane due to absence of bike lanes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 3:52 pm • linkreport

If you ignore that a small percentage of DC residents enjoy the bike lanes, look at the issue of traffic: Too many cars, not enough space. Bike lanes take up a lot of space and are only used fully on nice days, thus compounding the issue during poor weather, because most of those bikers then use cars.

by Someone on Mar 21, 2014 3:53 pm • linkreport

I'm voting for Nate Bennett-Fleming because I know he'd never oppose something as essential as bike lanes. He went to law school at Berkeley where bikes are everywhere. I don't know what Bonds was even thinking when she offered up a moratorium on bike lanes. Moratoriums are for terrible things, like the death penalty -- not bike lanes! Most bicyclists are young progressives, 99.9% of whom are voting for Nate. Too bad for Settles that Bonds is inadvertently working to solidify Nate's base.

by aspringcyclist on Mar 21, 2014 4:01 pm • linkreport

Too many cars, not enough space. Bike lanes take up a lot of space

The overwhelming majority of bike lanes in the city aren't wide enough to fit a car.

One way to get more people riding bikes (and less in their cars) is by providing bike lanes. When a bike lane goes in, bike usage on that street goes up.

by drumz on Mar 21, 2014 4:13 pm • linkreport

"If you ignore that a small percentage of DC residents enjoy the bike lanes, look at the issue of traffic: Too many cars, not enough space. "

but bike lanes take up relatively little space - they are much narrower than auto lanes, there is usually only one bike lane in each direction while roads often have more than one general travel lane in each direction, and most streets do not have them (and highways of course do not have them, and highways provide a very large part of the functional capacity for motor vehicles. So relative to usage, bike lanes do pretty well.

"Bike lanes take up a lot of space"

No they don't.

" and are only used fully on nice days, thus compounding the issue during poor weather, because most of those bikers then use cars. "

I could point out the folks who cycle even in the worst weather (im a wimp myself, but even I ride in cold and in light rain or flurries) But I think that on bad weather days lots of cyclists use transit instead, not their cars.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2014 4:25 pm • linkreport

I don't ride a bike around town, but I'm voting for Nate too. Yes, the bike moratorium is a bad idea, but the real issue is that Settles has a conflict of interest. Last night at the debate he said that he would make real estate investments on the Council, which is a conflict of interest like no other. Settles also said that he won't be a full time Councilmember. DC would come in second place to his personal investments in real estate.

by drummajor on Mar 21, 2014 4:25 pm • linkreport

@aspiringeider

You underestimate Settles base. He actually rode his bike to the forum on Sunday and has the support of many transportation voters in the city (take a look at the Twitter discussion related to this blog). He lives a multi-modal life, has kids in DCPS and has real world experience, between jobs at HUD, Wells Fargo, as a job creater and even a bankruptcy. He understands and has lived in the shoes of many people across the city in ways that the other candidates haven't. That is why the Current strongly endorsed Settles as the most knowledgeable non-incumbent they have EVER interviewed.

He has a strong base city wide and is best positioned to beat Bonds in this race.

by Voter on Mar 21, 2014 4:32 pm • linkreport

Someone wrote:

"If you ignore that a small percentage of DC residents enjoy the bike lanes, look at the issue of traffic: Too many cars, not enough space. Bike lanes take up a lot of space and are only used fully on nice days, thus compounding the issue during poor weather, because most of those bikers then use cars."

Makes a lot of sense...unless you give it more than two seconds thought. The overwhelming majority of bike lanes in DC have not eliminated parking nor auto lanes. The more people who ride bikes as transit the fewer cars on the road. Less parking needed. Lighter traffic. Better air.

You're welcome.

by Kevin on Mar 21, 2014 5:23 pm • linkreport

God bless Anita Bond I'm voting twice for her. Bikes need to obey all traffic Signals

by CC on Mar 21, 2014 5:29 pm • linkreport

Someone is worried about getting hit by cyclists, but not about cars? Wow. So it's alright to get maimed or killed by someone, just because they happened to be driving a car?

by Citizen on Mar 21, 2014 5:31 pm • linkreport

Some people were speeding on 14th street today and others blocked the intersection. Therefore we should put a moratorium on repaving roads until people learn to behave.

by drumz on Mar 21, 2014 5:31 pm • linkreport

@drumz:

"Some people were speeding on 14th street today"

What?! Really?!! How was that physically possible?

(;-)

by A Streeter on Mar 21, 2014 6:03 pm • linkreport

Remember: Cars don't speed. People speed.

It's my goal to set off a speed camera on my bike one day.

by Crickey7 on Mar 21, 2014 6:07 pm • linkreport

"She is not in favor of dedicated bike lanes on narrow streets within residential neighborhoods."

Is she suggesting this based solely on the fact that these lanes would take away from parking, or does she factor safety somewhere in to this?

There are a lot of cyclists who agree completely with what she is saying, but I get the feeling her reasoning doesn't quite line up with theirs. I don't have a problem with not putting bike lanes in and instead putting speed bumps on those streets and also putting cut outs in those speed bumps that allow bicyclists to roll smoothly through, but I don't think something like that exists in this city, at least not on purpose. That said, the more I hear removal of on-street parking as being a reason against any project, the more I start quoting Mr. Donald Shoup and every other sustainability oriented urban author out there.

by UrbanEngineer on Mar 21, 2014 6:19 pm • linkreport

Awalkerinthecity:

It appears we largely agree, as I thought we probably did. Just coming at it from slightly different angles.

Crickey: The "someone" poster will freak out at this, but one of my favorite things is to get the speed limits signs flashing when I'm on my bike. I'm the guy you see waving at the sensor, trying to make sure I set it off.

by DE on Mar 21, 2014 7:10 pm • linkreport

Bonds=Gray, no new bike lanes. At least she is honest and says it. Imagine if DDOT were allowed to continue the progress from the Fenty administration.

by Bunny on Mar 22, 2014 12:46 am • linkreport

Trust me... On the church item she'll come down on the side of the church. The crazy thing is this. This woman thinks that without ranked voting the system in DC is just fine. I bet she does...she'd never be able to win if majority ruled.

And, even after repeated calls, she continues to use constituent lists for political purposes.

Oh, on victory night she stood raising her arm with Marion Barry. Enough said.

by Mike R on Mar 22, 2014 12:26 pm • linkreport

She's just "appeasing" her lazy lard behind base.

by Orgasmaddict on Mar 23, 2014 8:29 pm • linkreport

@MLD

Neither Fleming nor Settles has prior experiences in elected office.

Fleming tends to get the nuances inherent in policy discussions better than Settles...Fleming's statement noting how difficult it would be to handle bike license plates for children is a good case in point; any kid who saves up enough allowance can go to Target to buy a bike, but how would licensing work? Would the kid's parent have to be present when the bike is purchased? What about when folks buy used bikes that predate any bike licensing law, in a private exchange (such as via Craiglist), would they have to haul the bike to some central location to get a license affixed to it? Buy a temporary license before they show up to meet the Craigslist seller, just so they can ride the bike from the transaction point to where bike licenses are given out? The idea is a clusterf--k and Fleming smartly caught a key issue such a law would raise.

Also, who is responsible for infractions of child cyclists? Their parent or guardian? How does ticketing work for homeless citizens, since homeless citizens in the city ride bikes too? Mail a ticket to their shelter? What if they aren't staying at a shelter?

This is why we need truly thoughtful people on the COuncil.

I'm voting for Fleming.

by Alan on Mar 24, 2014 3:00 pm • linkreport

I understand why Ms. Bonds feels this way and it's also in response to other opinions that deserve to be heard in this debate (the elderly and those who don't like to ride bikes). I WOULD advocate for more municipal parking, in core parts of the city--what candidate is advocating that? Not "temporary" municipal parking that goes away when a developer buys the land.The DC infrastructure is not even equipped to manage the vehicles that are on these streets now (including the potholes; poor general maintenance; etc.) Parking has been removed on key streets, to accommodate bike lanes (L St. NW; 15th St. NW; etc.), with our real assessments on the impact. Business owners lose parking in front of their establishments and risk losing customers who are tired of paying high parking lot & meter prices--or risk getting hit by over-zealous ticket folks. Resident/apartment dwellers lose parking spaces for guests and short-time visitors, for example. You may recall the debate about M Street, where the city considered putting bike lanes in front of one of the oldest churches in the city, which would eliminate a considerable amount of parking for their congregants. The church stood up and the lanes aren't there (for now). Parking is an expensive proposition for drivers (gouged at expensive parking lots OR forced to pay for gas used to drive around in circles in search of parking). I spent my first 14 years with a bike or Metro (which is still a work in progress as far as efficiency is concerned) as my primary sources of transportation--yes, before bike lanes reached DMV. I rode without incident (except for having my bike stolen once), thankfully. I still ride periodically, and, sometimes, prefer public transportation/bikes to the traffic. The challenge with this "new trend" of bike lanes is that it comes at the expense of some of our most vulnerable residents. Some elderly or physically challenged residents MUST drive, yet they cannot find adequate parking with only a handful of handicapped spaces and an overabundance of people with fake--or illegally used--handicapped tags. I have been saying that we need a SMARTer growth plan in DC. But, we are in a city, and at a time, where developers maximize space for maximum dollars, while those who should be thinking of the residents (e.g. elected officials), they seem to find more value in developers pockets. The bike lane protest comes from those who don't worry about parking spaces in commercial or residential neighborhoods, today, for various reasons: they can't afford a car because rents are too high; they prefer bikes and use them for most every need; they rent cars by the hour; they have their own parking needs met (home garages; monthly parking; drivers/car service). I'm all for the ability to take advantage of myriad transportation options--that's what cities do. But, I'm NOT OK with eliminating one for the other, when it's not necessary. Cars and bikes can share the roads--slow traffic stay to the left; ride responsibility. I will save my comments on the erratic and unsafe behaviors of the rent-a-bike crowd for another conversation. Thanks for listening :-)

by Edward on Mar 24, 2014 6:09 pm • linkreport

Edward: No parking spaces were removed to create the cycle track on 15th St. NW. The parking spaces were simply moved off the curb. The space taken was ultimately from one of the travel lanes. Parking spaces were removed from L Street.

The way to avoid being "hit by over-zealous ticket folks" (which I would call "public employees doing their job") is to pay for your space and follow the law. If people can't do that, I have limited sympathy. If there is absolutely no space on the block you want to park on, that's a supply and demand issue, not a license to park willy-nilly where you want (like, in front of alley entrances, hydrants, or too close to the corner). People who get ticketed for that behavior deserve what they get, period.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Mar 25, 2014 1:02 am • linkreport

I spoke with Cmbr Bonds last night at the Ward 6 Dems event, and all she could talk about what bicyclists and bike lanes (in a positive way!)

She told me she was only worried about the safety of bicyclists and that on narrow roads there isn't enough space.

She is a very charming, affable politician, have to give her that.

by h st ll on Mar 25, 2014 7:49 am • linkreport

'slow traffic stay to the left;'

I hope you're not driving with that rule in mind.

by CyclistinAlexandria on Mar 25, 2014 8:54 am • linkreport

She told me she was only worried about the safety of bicyclists and that on narrow roads there isn't enough space.

If she's worried about bicyclist safety, then maybe she should consult and listed to the opinions of people with actual knowledge on the subject. Almost all of them disagree with her conclusions.

by MLD on Mar 25, 2014 8:58 am • linkreport

Very true. My point was that she is owning it, wanting to discuss it further etc. Quite reasonable.

by h st ll on Mar 25, 2014 10:30 am • linkreport

and by "She told me she was only worried about the safety of bicyclists and that on narrow roads there isn't enough space" she really meant "get your damned bike lanes out from in front of my churches. I need the votes and bikers are too intelligent to fall for my lies."

by Mike R on Mar 25, 2014 11:22 am • linkreport

Bikers for nate this saturday: http://www.natefordc.com/bikes

by DC Biker and Washingtonian on Mar 25, 2014 3:41 pm • linkreport

I don't know. The bike lane on one-way 14* St. NE between F and G Streets seems to work just fine, despite parking lanes on both sides and one GP lane, as just one example of a block's worth of bike lane on a typical DC "narrow street." Of course, on any streets narrower than this, things may have to be different.

*Has anyone noticed how the DC street corner signs will, for instance, read "14 St NE" rather than "14th St NE?" Does anyone know why this is?

by DaveG on Mar 26, 2014 8:42 am • linkreport

Thing is, it's easy to backtrack and say you're only "concerned" about lanes on streets that are too narrow but that's got to be willfully ignorant on the standards that we (DC, federal, recommended, whatever) have for striping lanes on streets of a certain width. It's not flattering to ask questions that we already have answers for.

by drumz on Mar 26, 2014 8:57 am • linkreport

To be completely fair to Ms. Bonds, the block she lives on:

https://t.co/txQrAuH19z

appears to be like 14th St. NE, wide enough for two parking lanes and one GP lane (all unstriped), but not wide enough to also include a bike lane. I don't know the width of her street here, but perhaps a sharrow could also be placed there, if that doesn't bother her too much :-))

by DaveG on Mar 27, 2014 9:31 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or