Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

And another interesting takeaway from this data is that residential buildings alone contribute more to DC's greenhouse gas emissions than passenger vehicles!! 21.6 percent overall (residential buildings) vs. 16.6 passenger vehicles

Which is why the city is decarbonizing and moving to all electric with the potential to being fully renewable. 21st Century thinking, not 20th century thinking.

Can you be more specific? DC is doing a lot under the premise of reducing transportation emissions. What is DC doing to reduce emissions from residential buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

So, people who buy into a neighborhood buy into that neighborhood because they like its characteristics, including access to CT Avenue. And accordingly they are not interested in changes to those characteristics. Deal with it. Presumably, you are okay then with radical gentrification which is the exact same outcome-changing a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

Adding bike lanes will not impact the character of the neighborhood.

Removing two lanes of Connecticut will though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

And another interesting takeaway from this data is that residential buildings alone contribute more to DC's greenhouse gas emissions than passenger vehicles!! 21.6 percent overall (residential buildings) vs. 16.6 passenger vehicles

Which is why the city is decarbonizing and moving to all electric with the potential to being fully renewable. 21st Century thinking, not 20th century thinking.

Can you be more specific? DC is doing a lot under the premise of reducing transportation emissions. What is DC doing to reduce emissions from residential buildings?

Oh yay another stupid argument. “No bike lanes because DC isn’t doing enough to reduce emissions in residential buildings.” So stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

And another interesting takeaway from this data is that residential buildings alone contribute more to DC's greenhouse gas emissions than passenger vehicles!! 21.6 percent overall (residential buildings) vs. 16.6 passenger vehicles

Which is why the city is decarbonizing and moving to all electric with the potential to being fully renewable. 21st Century thinking, not 20th century thinking.

Can you be more specific? DC is doing a lot under the premise of reducing transportation emissions. What is DC doing to reduce emissions from residential buildings?

Passing rules around decarbonization and provding incentives for property owners to make the switch. Go to the DOEE and DCSEU websites for more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

So, people who buy into a neighborhood buy into that neighborhood because they like its characteristics, including access to CT Avenue. And accordingly they are not interested in changes to those characteristics. Deal with it. Presumably, you are okay then with radical gentrification which is the exact same outcome-changing a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

Adding bike lanes will not impact the character of the neighborhood.

Removing two lanes of Connecticut will though

No, it won't. Nothing changes about the "character" of the neighborhood. You think some more cars on public roads changes things...I have news for you, the cars are already using the roads. A 4% change really doesn't mean much, except in the eyes of the auto-centric residents who cannot envision anything else than what they think they know.

[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:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

So, people who buy into a neighborhood buy into that neighborhood because they like its characteristics, including access to CT Avenue. And accordingly they are not interested in changes to those characteristics. Deal with it. Presumably, you are okay then with radical gentrification which is the exact same outcome-changing a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

Adding bike lanes will not impact the character of the neighborhood.

Removing two lanes of Connecticut will though

No, it won't. Nothing changes about the "character" of the neighborhood. You think some more cars on public roads changes things...I have news for you, the cars are already using the roads. A 4% change really doesn't mean much, except in the eyes of the auto-centric residents who cannot envision anything else than what they think they know.

Give it up with your silly insults and slogans. There is no rainbow connection and you are not a hippie. There's going to be a lot more than a 4% increase. Especially when the increased housing happens at the same time. The constant talking out of both sides of the mouth is what I find to be the worst part of this. All your claims about traffic assume a fundamental change whereby everyone bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

[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:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

So, people who buy into a neighborhood buy into that neighborhood because they like its characteristics, including access to CT Avenue. And accordingly they are not interested in changes to those characteristics. Deal with it. Presumably, you are okay then with radical gentrification which is the exact same outcome-changing a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

Adding bike lanes will not impact the character of the neighborhood.

Removing two lanes of Connecticut will though

No, it won't. Nothing changes about the "character" of the neighborhood. You think some more cars on public roads changes things...I have news for you, the cars are already using the roads. A 4% change really doesn't mean much, except in the eyes of the auto-centric residents who cannot envision anything else than what they think they know.

Give it up with your silly insults and slogans. There is no rainbow connection and you are not a hippie. There's going to be a lot more than a 4% increase. Especially when the increased housing happens at the same time. The constant talking out of both sides of the mouth is what I find to be the worst part of this. All your claims about traffic assume a fundamental change whereby everyone bikes.

You probably thought Cathedral Commons, Babes and the Emergency Shelter were going to be the doom for the neighborhood and instead, nothing has changed. The same thing will happen with this. A lot of hysteria over what will amount to nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

The results you are hypothesizing are not supported by facts, no matter how many times you try to assert them.

I am an older professional with children. These bike lanes will be a game changer for our household, in a good way. Please just stop with the doom and gloom. We will easily cut our driving by at least half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

The results you are hypothesizing are not supported by facts, no matter how many times you try to assert them.

I am an older professional with children. These bike lanes will be a game changer for our household, in a good way. Please just stop with the doom and gloom. We will easily cut our driving by at least half.

You should read this. This is how these lanes play out in the real world, not in the bike industry paid studies. I wish you and you family good luck, you will need it.

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2021/02/28/the-supposed-safe-feeling-of-protected-bike-lanes-is-misleading-even-deadly/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

The results you are hypothesizing are not supported by facts, no matter how many times you try to assert them.

I am an older professional with children. These bike lanes will be a game changer for our household, in a good way. Please just stop with the doom and gloom. We will easily cut our driving by at least half.

You should read this. This is how these lanes play out in the real world, not in the bike industry paid studies. I wish you and you family good luck, you will need it.

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2021/02/28/the-supposed-safe-feeling-of-protected-bike-lanes-is-misleading-even-deadly/

We will be vary happy to use our bikes to run errands, support our local businesses and get our kids to school safely. Thank you for the good wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

Then why didn’t you run for office? Or at least vote for someone more experienced? You didn’t vote? Oh, you voted for someone else but they didn’t get elected because more voters chose the younger, less experienced person who voted for the new plan? Democracy, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

The results you are hypothesizing are not supported by facts, no matter how many times you try to assert them.

I am an older professional with children. These bike lanes will be a game changer for our household, in a good way. Please just stop with the doom and gloom. We will easily cut our driving by at least half.

You should read this. This is how these lanes play out in the real world, not in the bike industry paid studies. I wish you and you family good luck, you will need it.

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2021/02/28/the-supposed-safe-feeling-of-protected-bike-lanes-is-misleading-even-deadly/

We will be vary happy to use our bikes to run errands, support our local businesses and get our kids to school safely. Thank you for the good wishes.

Not sure how you plan to bike home with your multiple bags of groceries, or how you plan to bike your multiple kids to their multiple schools with their backpack and sports equipment, followed of course biking them to their favorite sports practice elsewhere. Please enjoy!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

You don’t seem to understand that theses lanes will not result in fewer cars. It will only push cars onto other roads where they will increase pollution and decrease safety. Any reduction in cars will be because MD and NWDC drivers decide it’s no longer worth it to drive downtown, which raises serious economic concerns. The problem with young, childless elected officials making major decisions is that they don’t have the life experience to comprehend why most older professionals will reject the bike lanes. They haven’t received the mid-day call to pick up a sick child or have to leave work suddenly to meet a contractor or bring an aging parent to medical appointment. And yes, we get it that there are some hippie parents who are all about bike lanes, but they’re the small minority.

The results you are hypothesizing are not supported by facts, no matter how many times you try to assert them.

I am an older professional with children. These bike lanes will be a game changer for our household, in a good way. Please just stop with the doom and gloom. We will easily cut our driving by at least half.

You should read this. This is how these lanes play out in the real world, not in the bike industry paid studies. I wish you and you family good luck, you will need it.

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2021/02/28/the-supposed-safe-feeling-of-protected-bike-lanes-is-misleading-even-deadly/

Yeh, reality sucks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

Do you have super powers or something? Otherwise, how could you possibly know someone else’s motivations? But putting motivations aside, improving transit on the corridor is not mutually exclusive with improving cycling infrastructure. All bus lanes in DC also allow bicycles. Seems like a much better proposal for a multipurpose, rather a single purpose lane.

Why does the NPS not build more paths thru Rock Creek. RC already has some paths that could be extended or widened.