Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

Doesn’t seem like you have to worry about how to do that, since you clearly don’t plan to ride a bike. Those of us who do use bikes for transportation have figured out how to do not-actually-complicated things like “carry some groceries” or “teach kids to ride a bike.”

[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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

[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).

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.

So you have zero specifics? Just word salad. Can you even define what decarbonization means?

Pretty clear that you you only use climate change as a slogan to promote a policy that you don’t even know will have a measurable impact. it’s honestly sad and people like you only serve as useful idiots for the industries trying to prevent meaningful action on climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

'

We already do this, so it shouldn't be of any concern to you. We just want to be able to do it to the places we go more directly and safely than we do now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

Your whole shtick is that your opinion should be treated as serious, irrefutable fact. It’s funny.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Because they don't want to, and it has zero bearing on this issue. Please stop with the strawmen. It is not convenient to ride from one neighborhood to another along CTAve via RCP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

So you have zero specifics? Just word salad. Can you even define what decarbonization means?

Pretty clear that you you only use climate change as a slogan to promote a policy that you don’t even know will have a measurable impact. it’s honestly sad and people like you only serve as useful idiots for the industries trying to prevent meaningful action on climate change.

I told you, go to the DOEE and DCSEU websites, they lay it all out.

And yes, decarbonization means getting away from fossil fuels, so in this case, the ability to electrify everything in a building and move away from Washington Gas as a supplier, and either use all renewable energy or work through PEPCO to get them to decommission their coal plants.

Not a word salad, look at the legislation around GreenDC and SustainableDC - the goals are in alignment with the UN standards.

Why are you so belligerent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

'

We already do this, so it shouldn't be of any concern to you. We just want to be able to do it to the places we go more directly and safely than we do now.

Nice try, but I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

'

We already do this, so it shouldn't be of any concern to you. We just want to be able to do it to the places we go more directly and safely than we do now.

Nice try, but I doubt it.

DP. I lived for years in Ward 3 doing all of this. It's really not that hard. Much easier if you have an e-bike (which I don't have).

e-Bikes are now selling electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids (https://electrek.co/2022/01/26/electric-bicycles-are-now-outselling-electric-cars-and-plug-in-hybrids-combined-in-the-us/). Things are changing, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

As proposed there are 75+ intersections along Connecticut Ave where cars will need to travel over the bike lanes. Sadly, we will have the data you need soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

As proposed there are 75+ intersections along Connecticut Ave where cars will need to travel over the bike lanes. Sadly, we will have the data you need soon enough.

As it is, we have to deal with each of those intersections now, so the bike lanes will provide more surety as to who is where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

As proposed there are 75+ intersections along Connecticut Ave where cars will need to travel over the bike lanes. Sadly, we will have the data you need soon enough.

As it is, we have to deal with each of those intersections now, so the bike lanes will provide more surety as to who is where.

We need timed lights so that bikes have a minute to enter the intersection going straight, while the turning cars in the car travel lane next to the bike lane have a red. Many places have those now. Some even have them set to detect the presence of cyclists in their lane, to only delay the turning cars when necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Yeh, reality sucks!

This is not reality, it is an opinion piece. From the link:

“ A cyclist on Leucadia Blvd suffered a much worse fate. A truck driver made a right turn in front of the rider, who was killed when he collided with the truck. The plastic pylons designed to protect the cyclist had the opposite effect; they prevented the truck driver from slowly moving towards the curb as he prepared to make that right turn onto Moonstone Court.”

The author give zero evidence that this wouldn’t have happened if the truck driver had been able to “slowly move toward the curb.” How would that have helped? The truck driver clearly didn’t see the cyclist, how would slowly squishing him instead of making a right turn into him have been a better death?

And yet you give zero evidence that it would not have made a difference. You need to think through your arguments better. DP.

I think the person citing this is “reality” should find better evidence if they want to say that an opinion piece is credible.

As proposed there are 75+ intersections along Connecticut Ave where cars will need to travel over the bike lanes. Sadly, we will have the data you need soon enough.

As it is, we have to deal with each of those intersections now, so the bike lanes will provide more surety as to who is where.

Right. But you don’t have 3000 bike users per day. Which is the DDOT “projection.” There will sadly be an accident each month. CT Ave is not the type of road meant for bike lanes. In legal speak this is an attractive nuisance. 3000 novice bikers crossing 75 intersections used by 30,000 commuters, tourists, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles. It’s an absolute recipe for disaster. Kids are going to get hit. Commuters are going to get hit. Everyone needs to wrap their arms around this and be ok with this as part of the greater good, I guess.