The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

There are also buildings, like the Kennedy Warren, where the FD will not be able to reach the top floors once concrete blocks are installed preventing them from access to the curb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

There are also buildings, like the Kennedy Warren, where the FD will not be able to reach the top floors once concrete blocks are installed preventing them from access to the curb.

Somehow they can do it in other cities with taller buildings. I think they have the experience and knowhow here to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies? That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars? Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

That's what's been stated: That bike lanes will make Connecticut Avenue "safer" by slowing down the speed of vehicle traffic substantially.

One of the goals of the redesign is to change the "design speed" to more closely match the posted speed (25). Right now you have people driving the design speed+ and others going "merely" 30ish, leading to lots of aggressive lane changes and passing. This is what creates danger, the variability in speed and the "racing to the next stop light" mentality.

By reducing variability in speed, you increase safety, and paradoxically increase throughput of a road by reducing average speed. This should make it easier for emergency vehicles to proceed, as fewer intersections should be blocked (by cars, not bikes).

This - I don't recall the average speeds on Connecticut Avenue but in other DDOT traffic studies I've read the average speeds on major mixed use corridors is surprisingly low - usually in the range of 10-12 miles per hour.

Sure there are brief open stretches where you can hit or even exceed the speed limit but most of the time you are sitting at a traffic light in a queue of cars so the only benefit to gunning it in the open stretches I guess is you have more time to check your phone sitting at a light.

Slowing down cars can actually improve traffic and it definitely reduces accidents and improves air quality if it reduces queuing and again it has no impact on the carrying capacity of a road - that is solely determined by the thru put at intersections which as has been stated hundreds of times now in this thread will be improved along Connecticut Avenue by the addition of turn lanes which will prevent a single turning car from narrowing the road from 2 lanes to 1 which commonly happens now.

There is actually a great example of this on Connecticut Avenue just across the line in MD. Since Chevy Chase MD added the two speed cameras on SB Connecticut Ave about 10 years ago magically everyone now drives the speed limit between Bradley and Chevy Chase Circle and guess what happened - traffic is now slowed and spread out as it approaches the circle rather than arriving in a high speed knot of cars and that enables cars to smoothly merge and negotiate the circle rather than everyone slamming on the brakes when they get there because they were going 40 MPH and there is a back-up because everyone arrived together - and guess what - there are rarely any back-ups SB at the circle anymore while they used to be persistent.

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies? That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars? Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.

Somebody had a long post upthread, explaining. Didn't you read it? Maybe you should go read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

LOL, for real

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

That's what's been stated: That bike lanes will make Connecticut Avenue "safer" by slowing down the speed of vehicle traffic substantially.

One of the goals of the redesign is to change the "design speed" to more closely match the posted speed (25). Right now you have people driving the design speed+ and others going "merely" 30ish, leading to lots of aggressive lane changes and passing. This is what creates danger, the variability in speed and the "racing to the next stop light" mentality.

By reducing variability in speed, you increase safety, and paradoxically increase throughput of a road by reducing average speed. This should make it easier for emergency vehicles to proceed, as fewer intersections should be blocked (by cars, not bikes).

This - I don't recall the average speeds on Connecticut Avenue but in other DDOT traffic studies I've read the average speeds on major mixed use corridors is surprisingly low - usually in the range of 10-12 miles per hour.

Sure there are brief open stretches where you can hit or even exceed the speed limit but most of the time you are sitting at a traffic light in a queue of cars so the only benefit to gunning it in the open stretches I guess is you have more time to check your phone sitting at a light.

Slowing down cars can actually improve traffic and it definitely reduces accidents and improves air quality if it reduces queuing and again it has no impact on the carrying capacity of a road - that is solely determined by the thru put at intersections which as has been stated hundreds of times now in this thread will be improved along Connecticut Avenue by the addition of turn lanes which will prevent a single turning car from narrowing the road from 2 lanes to 1 which commonly happens now.

There is actually a great example of this on Connecticut Avenue just across the line in MD. Since Chevy Chase MD added the two speed cameras on SB Connecticut Ave about 10 years ago magically everyone now drives the speed limit between Bradley and Chevy Chase Circle and guess what happened - traffic is now slowed and spread out as it approaches the circle rather than arriving in a high speed knot of cars and that enables cars to smoothly merge and negotiate the circle rather than everyone slamming on the brakes when they get there because they were going 40 MPH and there is a back-up because everyone arrived together - and guess what - there are rarely any back-ups SB at the circle anymore while they used to be persistent.

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

It's also a horrible example because navigating Chevy Chase Circle has gotten worse not better. There are now frequent backups entering Connecticut from both sides that clog up the circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

That's what's been stated: That bike lanes will make Connecticut Avenue "safer" by slowing down the speed of vehicle traffic substantially.

One of the goals of the redesign is to change the "design speed" to more closely match the posted speed (25). Right now you have people driving the design speed+ and others going "merely" 30ish, leading to lots of aggressive lane changes and passing. This is what creates danger, the variability in speed and the "racing to the next stop light" mentality.

By reducing variability in speed, you increase safety, and paradoxically increase throughput of a road by reducing average speed. This should make it easier for emergency vehicles to proceed, as fewer intersections should be blocked (by cars, not bikes).

This - I don't recall the average speeds on Connecticut Avenue but in other DDOT traffic studies I've read the average speeds on major mixed use corridors is surprisingly low - usually in the range of 10-12 miles per hour.

Sure there are brief open stretches where you can hit or even exceed the speed limit but most of the time you are sitting at a traffic light in a queue of cars so the only benefit to gunning it in the open stretches I guess is you have more time to check your phone sitting at a light.

Slowing down cars can actually improve traffic and it definitely reduces accidents and improves air quality if it reduces queuing and again it has no impact on the carrying capacity of a road - that is solely determined by the thru put at intersections which as has been stated hundreds of times now in this thread will be improved along Connecticut Avenue by the addition of turn lanes which will prevent a single turning car from narrowing the road from 2 lanes to 1 which commonly happens now.

There is actually a great example of this on Connecticut Avenue just across the line in MD. Since Chevy Chase MD added the two speed cameras on SB Connecticut Ave about 10 years ago magically everyone now drives the speed limit between Bradley and Chevy Chase Circle and guess what happened - traffic is now slowed and spread out as it approaches the circle rather than arriving in a high speed knot of cars and that enables cars to smoothly merge and negotiate the circle rather than everyone slamming on the brakes when they get there because they were going 40 MPH and there is a back-up because everyone arrived together - and guess what - there are rarely any back-ups SB at the circle anymore while they used to be persistent.

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

Huh - total non sequitor.

The success of the Connecticut Ave bike lanes aren't in any way reliant on traffic camera enforcement.

In fact it is quite the opposite - it is a roadway re-design that does not rely on enforcement to work.

But nice try or perhaps you are just confused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

That's what's been stated: That bike lanes will make Connecticut Avenue "safer" by slowing down the speed of vehicle traffic substantially.

One of the goals of the redesign is to change the "design speed" to more closely match the posted speed (25). Right now you have people driving the design speed+ and others going "merely" 30ish, leading to lots of aggressive lane changes and passing. This is what creates danger, the variability in speed and the "racing to the next stop light" mentality.

By reducing variability in speed, you increase safety, and paradoxically increase throughput of a road by reducing average speed. This should make it easier for emergency vehicles to proceed, as fewer intersections should be blocked (by cars, not bikes).

This - I don't recall the average speeds on Connecticut Avenue but in other DDOT traffic studies I've read the average speeds on major mixed use corridors is surprisingly low - usually in the range of 10-12 miles per hour.

Sure there are brief open stretches where you can hit or even exceed the speed limit but most of the time you are sitting at a traffic light in a queue of cars so the only benefit to gunning it in the open stretches I guess is you have more time to check your phone sitting at a light.

Slowing down cars can actually improve traffic and it definitely reduces accidents and improves air quality if it reduces queuing and again it has no impact on the carrying capacity of a road - that is solely determined by the thru put at intersections which as has been stated hundreds of times now in this thread will be improved along Connecticut Avenue by the addition of turn lanes which will prevent a single turning car from narrowing the road from 2 lanes to 1 which commonly happens now.

There is actually a great example of this on Connecticut Avenue just across the line in MD. Since Chevy Chase MD added the two speed cameras on SB Connecticut Ave about 10 years ago magically everyone now drives the speed limit between Bradley and Chevy Chase Circle and guess what happened - traffic is now slowed and spread out as it approaches the circle rather than arriving in a high speed knot of cars and that enables cars to smoothly merge and negotiate the circle rather than everyone slamming on the brakes when they get there because they were going 40 MPH and there is a back-up because everyone arrived together - and guess what - there are rarely any back-ups SB at the circle anymore while they used to be persistent.

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

It's also a horrible example because navigating Chevy Chase Circle has gotten worse not better. There are now frequent backups entering Connecticut from both sides that clog up the circle.

Back ups on both sides of CT and both sides of Western is nothing new.

-someone who has been driving in DC since the 1980's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

The police have said the bike lanes will lead to MORE accidents. Which is completely obvious to just about everyone except the bike bros.

The police union assertion is factually incorrect, as has already been explained a billion times previously on this and the many other DCUM threads started and maintained by the small number of people whose weird hobby is hating on the Connecticut Avenue plan anonymously online.

Look, in the middle of the current crime wave that shows no signs of receding you have to listen to the rank and file police. Any project that could potentially increase response time is irresponsible and dangerous. The mayor finally understands this.

Even when they're wrong!

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't listen to them when they're wrong.

So the stated purpose of the bike lanes is to slow down cars. But this will have no impact on the police, fire, and EMS vehicles? This all sounds very magical.

That's what's been stated: That bike lanes will make Connecticut Avenue "safer" by slowing down the speed of vehicle traffic substantially.

One of the goals of the redesign is to change the "design speed" to more closely match the posted speed (25). Right now you have people driving the design speed+ and others going "merely" 30ish, leading to lots of aggressive lane changes and passing. This is what creates danger, the variability in speed and the "racing to the next stop light" mentality.

By reducing variability in speed, you increase safety, and paradoxically increase throughput of a road by reducing average speed. This should make it easier for emergency vehicles to proceed, as fewer intersections should be blocked (by cars, not bikes).

This - I don't recall the average speeds on Connecticut Avenue but in other DDOT traffic studies I've read the average speeds on major mixed use corridors is surprisingly low - usually in the range of 10-12 miles per hour.

Sure there are brief open stretches where you can hit or even exceed the speed limit but most of the time you are sitting at a traffic light in a queue of cars so the only benefit to gunning it in the open stretches I guess is you have more time to check your phone sitting at a light.

Slowing down cars can actually improve traffic and it definitely reduces accidents and improves air quality if it reduces queuing and again it has no impact on the carrying capacity of a road - that is solely determined by the thru put at intersections which as has been stated hundreds of times now in this thread will be improved along Connecticut Avenue by the addition of turn lanes which will prevent a single turning car from narrowing the road from 2 lanes to 1 which commonly happens now.

There is actually a great example of this on Connecticut Avenue just across the line in MD. Since Chevy Chase MD added the two speed cameras on SB Connecticut Ave about 10 years ago magically everyone now drives the speed limit between Bradley and Chevy Chase Circle and guess what happened - traffic is now slowed and spread out as it approaches the circle rather than arriving in a high speed knot of cars and that enables cars to smoothly merge and negotiate the circle rather than everyone slamming on the brakes when they get there because they were going 40 MPH and there is a back-up because everyone arrived together - and guess what - there are rarely any back-ups SB at the circle anymore while they used to be persistent.

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

It's also a horrible example because navigating Chevy Chase Circle has gotten worse not better. There are now frequent backups entering Connecticut from both sides that clog up the circle.

Not at all true and another non sequitur - also studied and available if you want to look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies? That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars? Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.

Somebody had a long post upthread, explaining. Didn't you read it? Maybe you should go read it.

Would you prefer magic sparkle unicorns? The claim that this plan would neither increase congestion nor divert traffic is delusional at best and an outright lie at worse since those two outcomes are not only the mechanism for the supposed safety benefit but also specifically mentioned by DDOT as something that will occur.

Remember, even with DDOT's assumption of a 1100% increase in bike usage it still projects thousands of cars worth of diverted traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies? That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars? Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.

Somebody had a long post upthread, explaining. Didn't you read it? Maybe you should go read it.

Would you prefer magic sparkle unicorns? The claim that this plan would neither increase congestion nor divert traffic is delusional at best and an outright lie at worse since those two outcomes are not only the mechanism for the supposed safety benefit but also specifically mentioned by DDOT as something that will occur.

Remember, even with DDOT's assumption of a 1100% increase in bike usage it still projects thousands of cars worth of diverted traffic.

Did a magical horse on a bike kill your family or something? Weird reference to make twice on one thread where others are sharing studies and data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

Except that I was saying it would NOT make traffic worse, because it would remove those white people from the car lanes. The Connecticut Avenue plan won't make traffic worse, because it doesn't remove car driving lanes, it only removes parking.

(If it were up to me, I'd say anyone who's healthy enough to bike and lives less than 5 miles from their white-collar office should not be allowed to drive to work, but it isn't up to me.)

Bike lanes make car traffic worse -- a lot of worse. Isn't that the point? The city is trying to make driving so miserable that people will switch to bikes. Of course, there is zero evidence that is happening. Transit data shows driving is becoming more popular, and the number of people on bikes is shrinking.

That is not the point, and bike lanes do not make car traffic worse if you're not removing a lane of car traffic. The Connecticut Avenue plan isn't removing any car traffic and, in fact, it's adding turn lanes. No one thinks people will switch from driving to biking just because traffic is bad. They want people who live close enough to work to bike to feel safe biking.

There will be four travel lanes. One of them on each side also will be used by buses that will have to stop to let off and pick up passengers on "bus islands." No doubt they will also be blocked by delivery trucks and and others. The turn lanes will likely just encourage slow Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert into side streets. The plan is poorly thought through.

So which is it - the turn lanes will improve thruput over the status quo - so why would they cause traffic to divert to the side streets.

And the side street argument is so stupid - I live in the neighborhood and there really aren't any side streets that are faster as North-South alternatives.

If you've read the actual DDOT reports it predicts improved levels of service at all but one intersection along Connecticut Avenue.

The actual trade-off here is parking for bike lanes not vehicle thruput for bike lanes - at least have an honest argument about what is proposed.

Unfortunately, your point is not correct. Woodley, Cleveland Park, North Cleveland Park east-west streets have a lot of through traffic (a good but not complete proxy is the number of MD and VA license plates) that go between Connecticut, Reno, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, looking for the fastest route north and west to MD or VA or south and east to downtown. If Connecticut is constrained this will increase a lot, as will traffic on Reno, Wisconsin, etc.

Drivers are already doing this. It isn't like those streets are empty during rush hour or other times. It isn't like there will be more cars doing it, because the roads are already full at peak periods. So it is really a red herring to argue it will be worse. I mean Reno is already backed up for most of the way between Mass and Tilden on a daily basis. Changes to CT Ave won't make it worse.

So all of the Connecticut Ave traffic will just slip away like magic sparkle ponies? That's good, because Beach Drive will remain closed to cars? Or maybe all of those commuters and families with kids will just switch to e-cargo bikes.

Somebody had a long post upthread, explaining. Didn't you read it? Maybe you should go read it.

Would you prefer magic sparkle unicorns? The claim that this plan would neither increase congestion nor divert traffic is delusional at best and an outright lie at worse since those two outcomes are not only the mechanism for the supposed safety benefit but also specifically mentioned by DDOT as something that will occur.

Remember, even with DDOT's assumption of a 1100% increase in bike usage it still projects thousands of cars worth of diverted traffic.

DDOT also "assumed" that a high percentage of vehicle trips wold "divert" to bike trips, which is somewhere between risible and ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a horrible example. Chevy Chase, MD is a high functioning local government that collects a large percentage of those photo tickets. DC, on the other hand, currently has over 3,000,000 billion unpaid tickets totaling almost $2 billion. This is another reason the bike lane plan is fatally flawed. Without actual enforcement it will be traffic Armageddon.

LOL, for real

True. Makes one think that what the DC bureaucrats call "Rock Creek West" should form its own borough with its own schools, police department, etc. Think of the high quality services unburdened by the incompetence, waste and rank patronage of ol' DC.