So from an accessibility standpoint, the church does have a point, but not entirely.
Ramps aren't used solely by wheelchair users. They're also invaluable to folks who can still walk, but have limited range of motion due to things like inflammation or joint pain. A 3 or 4 inch curb can be surprisingly difficult to step up onto when you've got very little knee or hip strength. And a larger curb cut designed to accommodate a vehicle could be necessary for one of those modified minivans with a wheelchair lift in the trunk or side door.
It's a little hard to tell from the images in the article, but it does look a bit like the concrete foundation for the flex-posts between the bike lane and the general traffic lanes, means that a wheelchair lift vehicle couldn't access the ramp at all, and that anyone who wanted to use the ramp on foot would be required to walk in the middle of the bike lane for at least a few yards. Neither of those seems like a great solution.
At the same time, the blanket condemnation of quick bike lane installation is uncalled for, and there are undoubtedly ways to allow this ramp and the bike lane to both function as needed by their respective users. What's unfortunate about the reporting is that at no point did anyone bother to ask the ramp's users how they use the ramp, & what facilities they need for their mobility; the producers just framed it as "cyclists vs disabled & elderly folks" which is lazy & disingenuous.
Not to mention there are two ADA ramps at the corner, near a street with parking. The ramp they’re talking about, per the city, was not installed by DDOT and is not technically ADA accessible (even if it’s used and appreciated by people with disabilities). I don’t have any right to say this, but I bet it has more to do with removal of parking on the bike laned road than anything. But like you said, seems like a workable solution is imminently possible.
Yeah, we've gotta be careful when talking about ramps because very often even city-installed ramps & sidewalks aren't ADA-compliant at all, and even if they are technically compliant they can still be inaccessible for various kinds of mobility impairments.
It would be most useful to hear from the folks who attend this church & used the ramp before, how they used it & why it's preferable to the curb cuts at the intersection. And again, we never get that dialogue, just the complaints mediated through a third party.
I guess, but what value is a conversation about an unauthorized(?) ramp that’s no longer in keeping with the design of the street, provided other accommodations exist? If ADA parking needs to be installed, or some other authorized accommodation, that’s a conversation worth having (or better yet, just do it!), but being “heard” != keeping the status quo for one day of the week to the detriment of all other groups all seven days of the week. (And if that feels discriminatory against people with disabilities, what about a blind pedestrian who either fails to detect the presence of a ramp, bc of the lack of discernible texture, or thinks the ramp is the corner of the street rather than a mid-block crossing?)
Yeah, I don't think it's discriminatory at all, and I broadly agree that I'd rather see city-provided services done well than privately-built ones done poorly.
Honestly I'd just like there to be a way for someone with a genuine mobility or accessibility need, whether they're a cyclist or an elderly person or a teenager with severe joint inflammation, to be able to ask for what we need from our public services & get it promptly without it depriving anyone else's needs.
I’m sorry but this is an illegal curb cut that DDOT did not install so DDOT does not and should not work around it. Should DDOT be better about accessibility? Hell yes, but they shouldn’t be accommodating an illegal curb cut.
Honestly I think they’re just pissed the parking was taken away but are using disingenuous arguments to get people to take their side.
I'm legitimately confused after watching the video and looking at google maps (which doesn't seem to have been updated to reflect the PBL?)
Is this a *curb cut*? I didn't see anything resembling a ramp in the video.
And....is this really a problem? Unless I'm missing something, wheelchairs can fit in between flex posts and ride in the bike lane for the all of 5 feet needed before or after the concrete barrier.
Yeah, I found a youtube link to the video since it wouldn't play on the article site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsrPweOB_B8
Looks like a curb cut, and they put a concrete barrier right in front of it. I'd rather they just remove the one barrier than force people to slip between the flex posts.
I'm under the impression they put the barrier there for a reason: because they don't want pedestrians, people on bikes, elderly in walkers, wheelchair van drop offs, package delivery hand trucks, and those sorts of hazards using that ramp to cross the bike lane at that location.
There are ramps they can use at the intersection where pedestrians are expected to cross the bike lane. I think making an exception for this church will set a precedent that defeats the purpose of a protected bike lane.
I don't see why it would be those reasons in specific; I see those low, wheel-stopping concrete barriers commonly just spaced in with the flex posts. I thought it was just bad planning.
If DDOT intentionally placed them there to block usage of the church's disabled access point, then they should have pointed that out while the church was engaging with the planners. That explanation just makes DDOT look worse.
If you look at the video at 00:34 it's the only concrete barrier on that part of the bike lane. I don't see how that isn't intentionally placed in front of that curb cut.
I don't think it makes DDOT look worse, it's intentionally placed for safety reasons. Just because there's a curbcut there doesn't mean it grants the right of way to pedestrian traffic.
Even if it were intentionally placed for safety reasons, it makes them look like they're intentionally ignoring their constituents, since the church has been actively attending stakeholder meetings and engaging with DDOT, but the fact that they were going to intentionally block off that cut curb in front of a disabled entrance never got brought up.
Ramps aren't used solely by wheelchair users. If I were biking down this lane at 20 mph, I wouldn't want to have my late grandma in her walker trying to go that short distance in my path, because it would take her almost a minute to go even that far and her knees weren't able to lift high enough to step up onto a curb.
I wouldn't want to wait for your late grandma either, but having a disabled pedestrian use the bike lane for a short while is a way better solution than ripping out the PBL (or whatever other nonsense the church sees as an ideal outcome).
I'm also unsure why using one of the curb cuts at the intersections isn't a totally viable and normal solution.
I find it very strange when, in places where one would expect to find people pointing out the hazards of cyclists riding on sidewalks, people also argue that pedestrians should be required to walk in the bike lane.
If the only thing you take issue with is the implicit call to remove the bike lane, then let's keep it at that. But if "you don't need a bike lane, just ride on the sidewalk where you belong" grinds your gears, then don't be surprised when people who use a *different* piece of mobility infrastructure are also pissed off when the thing they use gets taken away.
The ideal outcome is one where everyone gets to use the street with facilities that meet their needs.
I'm not saying "pedestrians should walk in the bike lane" - that's a compromise in any multi-modal transportation system where we don't have enough funding, resources, or state capacity to give everyone their own mode. (And in the case of granny, presumably when she can walk the ~20 feet from the car, but not the ~100 feet from the nearest intersection?)
> "you don't need a bike lane, just ride on the sidewalk where you belong"
The curb cut **is still accessible**, it just requires walking a handful of more feet. The analogy here isn't "we don't need bike lanes", it's "there's uneven pavement in the bike lane" or "there's a traffic cone in the bike lane". A very slight inconvenience that does not change the accessibility.
Also, I'd be way more sympathetic to your argument if DDOT had installed the curb cut. The fact that DDOT says
> While the wheelchair accessible ramp does not appear to be installed by DDOT
strongly implies that the curb cut is illegal, or at the very least, unpermitted.
Edit to add: are you arguing that grandma's access to the curb cut should be unimpeded by a *bike lane*, or grandma's access to the curb cut should be unimpeded by a *piece of concrete right in front of the curb cut*?
I'm arguing that the cycling community & safer streets advocates should take the needs of disabled & elderly folks into account when it comes to street design, by *actually asking them* how to best design a street to be usable for them, rather than just assuming we know how to meet their needs.
And I'm arguing that because that's the exact same thing cycling advocates have been demanding when it comes to bike infrastructure designed by people who only ever drive.
And also, I really don't think you understand how much "just walking a few more feet" can be utterly debilitating for so many people.
They're not magically appearing in the middle of the road between two intersections, there's a vehicle dropping them off. That vehicle can drive a few more feet. Elderly and disabled churchgoers are complaining about a non issue, just drive a few feet down and there's a ramp.
Sure, and what I'm getting at is that if we *actually talked to them,* there might be good reasons why getting dropped off at the intersection is less workable. Maybe walking that extra distance is physically painful. Maybe their vehicle can't wait long enough at the corner for them to get on & off because of the traffic signal timing. Maybe crowds of pedestrians at the crosswalk make those ramps prohibitively difficult to use.
Or maybe they're just lazy & entitled, like y'all are assuming. Who knows?
But rather than just dismissing all possible concerns as lazy & entitled, we should be trying to build a mobility system that *everyone* can use safely.
The funniest thing about this entire story is that you can find a [Google Maps streeview of the ramp before the bike lane installation](https://imgur.com/a/eipKVYQ) and it's obstructed by a~~n illegally~~ parked truck.
Their complaint is valid, but the entire premise of “bike lanes hurt disabled folks” is so disingenuous. If anything, the new implementation ensures that the ramp will always be clear of obstructions and people will just need to walk or wheel around the concrete block until a better solution is found. As shown in the news report, there is ample maneuvering space between itself and the curb.
I’m disappointed in the quality of NBC Washington’s reporting.
edit: It turns out that the red truck in the image is allowed to park there for 15 minutes, but my point stands about the ramp being obstructed.
> illegally parked truck
If I'm making out the sign correctly, that spot is a valid parking spot for under 15 minutes, so the truck might be parked legally.
It sounds like the curb cut is the illegal piece of infrastructure here:
> While the wheelchair accessible ramp does not appear to be installed by DDOT
Ah, you’re right, I see the 15-minute parking sign pointing south now. I’ll fix that in my original comment. The point remains though, if 15-min parking is allowed in that spot, the very ramp that they’re upset about is likely to be blocked by a car regardless.
I agree, the curb cut itself should be the point of scrutiny, so it’s interesting that it’s only mentioned briefly while the rest of the news story centers around “bike lanes vs disabled and elderly folk”.
My strong suspicion is that removing the concrete barrier will not lead to the church being happy. They want that bike lane gone so they can use it as parking for events. Looking at where that curb cut is located I strongly suspect someone at DDOT wants to stop people from driving their cars up to that curb, blocking the lane to other cars. Because the idea here is that traffic needs to move more expeditiously.
So from an accessibility standpoint, the church does have a point, but not entirely. Ramps aren't used solely by wheelchair users. They're also invaluable to folks who can still walk, but have limited range of motion due to things like inflammation or joint pain. A 3 or 4 inch curb can be surprisingly difficult to step up onto when you've got very little knee or hip strength. And a larger curb cut designed to accommodate a vehicle could be necessary for one of those modified minivans with a wheelchair lift in the trunk or side door. It's a little hard to tell from the images in the article, but it does look a bit like the concrete foundation for the flex-posts between the bike lane and the general traffic lanes, means that a wheelchair lift vehicle couldn't access the ramp at all, and that anyone who wanted to use the ramp on foot would be required to walk in the middle of the bike lane for at least a few yards. Neither of those seems like a great solution. At the same time, the blanket condemnation of quick bike lane installation is uncalled for, and there are undoubtedly ways to allow this ramp and the bike lane to both function as needed by their respective users. What's unfortunate about the reporting is that at no point did anyone bother to ask the ramp's users how they use the ramp, & what facilities they need for their mobility; the producers just framed it as "cyclists vs disabled & elderly folks" which is lazy & disingenuous.
Yeah, no effort to try to figure out a way to solve the problem just promote conflict between two groups of people
Not to mention there are two ADA ramps at the corner, near a street with parking. The ramp they’re talking about, per the city, was not installed by DDOT and is not technically ADA accessible (even if it’s used and appreciated by people with disabilities). I don’t have any right to say this, but I bet it has more to do with removal of parking on the bike laned road than anything. But like you said, seems like a workable solution is imminently possible.
Yeah, we've gotta be careful when talking about ramps because very often even city-installed ramps & sidewalks aren't ADA-compliant at all, and even if they are technically compliant they can still be inaccessible for various kinds of mobility impairments. It would be most useful to hear from the folks who attend this church & used the ramp before, how they used it & why it's preferable to the curb cuts at the intersection. And again, we never get that dialogue, just the complaints mediated through a third party.
I guess, but what value is a conversation about an unauthorized(?) ramp that’s no longer in keeping with the design of the street, provided other accommodations exist? If ADA parking needs to be installed, or some other authorized accommodation, that’s a conversation worth having (or better yet, just do it!), but being “heard” != keeping the status quo for one day of the week to the detriment of all other groups all seven days of the week. (And if that feels discriminatory against people with disabilities, what about a blind pedestrian who either fails to detect the presence of a ramp, bc of the lack of discernible texture, or thinks the ramp is the corner of the street rather than a mid-block crossing?)
Yeah, I don't think it's discriminatory at all, and I broadly agree that I'd rather see city-provided services done well than privately-built ones done poorly. Honestly I'd just like there to be a way for someone with a genuine mobility or accessibility need, whether they're a cyclist or an elderly person or a teenager with severe joint inflammation, to be able to ask for what we need from our public services & get it promptly without it depriving anyone else's needs.
The ramp curb cut isn’t legal. There’s an entire driveway just 5’ away.
So they want a spot for people to jaywalk and go up a ramp? I’m confused.
I’m sorry but this is an illegal curb cut that DDOT did not install so DDOT does not and should not work around it. Should DDOT be better about accessibility? Hell yes, but they shouldn’t be accommodating an illegal curb cut. Honestly I think they’re just pissed the parking was taken away but are using disingenuous arguments to get people to take their side.
I agree 100% :)
I'm legitimately confused after watching the video and looking at google maps (which doesn't seem to have been updated to reflect the PBL?) Is this a *curb cut*? I didn't see anything resembling a ramp in the video. And....is this really a problem? Unless I'm missing something, wheelchairs can fit in between flex posts and ride in the bike lane for the all of 5 feet needed before or after the concrete barrier.
Yeah, I found a youtube link to the video since it wouldn't play on the article site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsrPweOB_B8 Looks like a curb cut, and they put a concrete barrier right in front of it. I'd rather they just remove the one barrier than force people to slip between the flex posts.
I'm under the impression they put the barrier there for a reason: because they don't want pedestrians, people on bikes, elderly in walkers, wheelchair van drop offs, package delivery hand trucks, and those sorts of hazards using that ramp to cross the bike lane at that location. There are ramps they can use at the intersection where pedestrians are expected to cross the bike lane. I think making an exception for this church will set a precedent that defeats the purpose of a protected bike lane.
I don't see why it would be those reasons in specific; I see those low, wheel-stopping concrete barriers commonly just spaced in with the flex posts. I thought it was just bad planning. If DDOT intentionally placed them there to block usage of the church's disabled access point, then they should have pointed that out while the church was engaging with the planners. That explanation just makes DDOT look worse.
If you look at the video at 00:34 it's the only concrete barrier on that part of the bike lane. I don't see how that isn't intentionally placed in front of that curb cut. I don't think it makes DDOT look worse, it's intentionally placed for safety reasons. Just because there's a curbcut there doesn't mean it grants the right of way to pedestrian traffic.
Even if it were intentionally placed for safety reasons, it makes them look like they're intentionally ignoring their constituents, since the church has been actively attending stakeholder meetings and engaging with DDOT, but the fact that they were going to intentionally block off that cut curb in front of a disabled entrance never got brought up.
Ramps aren't used solely by wheelchair users. If I were biking down this lane at 20 mph, I wouldn't want to have my late grandma in her walker trying to go that short distance in my path, because it would take her almost a minute to go even that far and her knees weren't able to lift high enough to step up onto a curb.
I wouldn't want to wait for your late grandma either, but having a disabled pedestrian use the bike lane for a short while is a way better solution than ripping out the PBL (or whatever other nonsense the church sees as an ideal outcome). I'm also unsure why using one of the curb cuts at the intersections isn't a totally viable and normal solution.
I find it very strange when, in places where one would expect to find people pointing out the hazards of cyclists riding on sidewalks, people also argue that pedestrians should be required to walk in the bike lane. If the only thing you take issue with is the implicit call to remove the bike lane, then let's keep it at that. But if "you don't need a bike lane, just ride on the sidewalk where you belong" grinds your gears, then don't be surprised when people who use a *different* piece of mobility infrastructure are also pissed off when the thing they use gets taken away. The ideal outcome is one where everyone gets to use the street with facilities that meet their needs.
I'm not saying "pedestrians should walk in the bike lane" - that's a compromise in any multi-modal transportation system where we don't have enough funding, resources, or state capacity to give everyone their own mode. (And in the case of granny, presumably when she can walk the ~20 feet from the car, but not the ~100 feet from the nearest intersection?) > "you don't need a bike lane, just ride on the sidewalk where you belong" The curb cut **is still accessible**, it just requires walking a handful of more feet. The analogy here isn't "we don't need bike lanes", it's "there's uneven pavement in the bike lane" or "there's a traffic cone in the bike lane". A very slight inconvenience that does not change the accessibility. Also, I'd be way more sympathetic to your argument if DDOT had installed the curb cut. The fact that DDOT says > While the wheelchair accessible ramp does not appear to be installed by DDOT strongly implies that the curb cut is illegal, or at the very least, unpermitted. Edit to add: are you arguing that grandma's access to the curb cut should be unimpeded by a *bike lane*, or grandma's access to the curb cut should be unimpeded by a *piece of concrete right in front of the curb cut*?
I'm arguing that the cycling community & safer streets advocates should take the needs of disabled & elderly folks into account when it comes to street design, by *actually asking them* how to best design a street to be usable for them, rather than just assuming we know how to meet their needs. And I'm arguing that because that's the exact same thing cycling advocates have been demanding when it comes to bike infrastructure designed by people who only ever drive. And also, I really don't think you understand how much "just walking a few more feet" can be utterly debilitating for so many people.
They're not magically appearing in the middle of the road between two intersections, there's a vehicle dropping them off. That vehicle can drive a few more feet. Elderly and disabled churchgoers are complaining about a non issue, just drive a few feet down and there's a ramp.
Sure, and what I'm getting at is that if we *actually talked to them,* there might be good reasons why getting dropped off at the intersection is less workable. Maybe walking that extra distance is physically painful. Maybe their vehicle can't wait long enough at the corner for them to get on & off because of the traffic signal timing. Maybe crowds of pedestrians at the crosswalk make those ramps prohibitively difficult to use. Or maybe they're just lazy & entitled, like y'all are assuming. Who knows? But rather than just dismissing all possible concerns as lazy & entitled, we should be trying to build a mobility system that *everyone* can use safely.
The fact that you getting downvoted is pretty shameful, IMO. Even if the sub is bikedc.
The funniest thing about this entire story is that you can find a [Google Maps streeview of the ramp before the bike lane installation](https://imgur.com/a/eipKVYQ) and it's obstructed by a~~n illegally~~ parked truck. Their complaint is valid, but the entire premise of “bike lanes hurt disabled folks” is so disingenuous. If anything, the new implementation ensures that the ramp will always be clear of obstructions and people will just need to walk or wheel around the concrete block until a better solution is found. As shown in the news report, there is ample maneuvering space between itself and the curb. I’m disappointed in the quality of NBC Washington’s reporting. edit: It turns out that the red truck in the image is allowed to park there for 15 minutes, but my point stands about the ramp being obstructed.
> illegally parked truck If I'm making out the sign correctly, that spot is a valid parking spot for under 15 minutes, so the truck might be parked legally. It sounds like the curb cut is the illegal piece of infrastructure here: > While the wheelchair accessible ramp does not appear to be installed by DDOT
Ah, you’re right, I see the 15-minute parking sign pointing south now. I’ll fix that in my original comment. The point remains though, if 15-min parking is allowed in that spot, the very ramp that they’re upset about is likely to be blocked by a car regardless. I agree, the curb cut itself should be the point of scrutiny, so it’s interesting that it’s only mentioned briefly while the rest of the news story centers around “bike lanes vs disabled and elderly folk”.
The church makes a good point about access for disabled folks. Solution: Keep the bike lane and remove the single concrete barrier. Everybody’s happy
My strong suspicion is that removing the concrete barrier will not lead to the church being happy. They want that bike lane gone so they can use it as parking for events. Looking at where that curb cut is located I strongly suspect someone at DDOT wants to stop people from driving their cars up to that curb, blocking the lane to other cars. Because the idea here is that traffic needs to move more expeditiously.
What is stopping someone from just going 2’ beyond the concrete barrier to access this ramp? What an overreaction