Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

Tell it to the people killed and injured eating lunch at Parthenon.

[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: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

So if they aren't getting hit now, why does the PP think adding bike lanes will mean they will be getting hit in the future?

[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).

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?

“Decarbonization means getting away from fossil fuels” is just an utterly stupid statement. I am sorry.

Decarbonization is about reducing carbon intensity of the economy and is measured by GHG per $ GDP.

It is about moving from higher carbon intensity energy sources to lower carbon intensity energy sources. Sometimes that means moving from coal to natural gas. Other times it means moving from less efficient distributed generation (e.g. boilers for heating) to more efficient centralized generation (e.g. power plants and electric heat pumps).

And importantly, it not one singular intervention or even one city, it is an economy-wide phenomenon.

I am sorry that you are a moron. Please stop claiming that a bike lane is any way related to climate change. It is not. What you are doing is turning what should be economy-scale policy and turning it into person choice (bike or drive) which falls directly into the interests of those who want to prevent economy-wide climate action for actual decarbonization.

I am sorry to break it to you, but you are a useful idiot for the fossil fuels industry.

If one goes from a gas powers car to a human powered bike, that is decarbonization. I just don't understand why this is hard to understand.

[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/

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.

The vast majority of people are NOT going to give up their cars and you obsessive bike nuts are and will continue to be a loud minority,like it or not.

No one said a vast majority needs to. But, if enough of a minority do, then it frees up lanes for people to drive in and spaces for people to park in. No one has ever suggested that hundreds of thousands of people are going to suddenly switch to bikes or ebikes.

[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).

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?

“Decarbonization means getting away from fossil fuels” is just an utterly stupid statement. I am sorry.

Decarbonization is about reducing carbon intensity of the economy and is measured by GHG per $ GDP.

It is about moving from higher carbon intensity energy sources to lower carbon intensity energy sources. Sometimes that means moving from coal to natural gas. Other times it means moving from less efficient distributed generation (e.g. boilers for heating) to more efficient centralized generation (e.g. power plants and electric heat pumps).

And importantly, it not one singular intervention or even one city, it is an economy-wide phenomenon.

I am sorry that you are a moron. Please stop claiming that a bike lane is any way related to climate change. It is not. What you are doing is turning what should be economy-scale policy and turning it into person choice (bike or drive) which falls directly into the interests of those who want to prevent economy-wide climate action for actual decarbonization.

I am sorry to break it to you, but you are a useful idiot for the fossil fuels industry.

Those who cannot grasp marginal analysis should generally avoid throwing around words like “moron” and “stupid”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

So if they aren't getting hit now, why does the PP think adding bike lanes will mean they will be getting hit in the future?

Because you will be inducing 3000 kids/adults per day to begin using bike lanes under the false characterization that they are “protected.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

So if they aren't getting hit now, why does the PP think adding bike lanes will mean they will be getting hit in the future?

Mental gymnastics to justify their position that no change can be allowed if it interferes with car commuting

[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.

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?

Young, childless Mayor Bowser?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

So if they aren't getting hit now, why does the PP think adding bike lanes will mean they will be getting hit in the future?

Because you will be inducing 3000 kids/adults per day to begin using bike lanes under the false characterization that they are “protected.”

You are premptively blaming the rape victim for what she is wearing. Maybe people need to be more observant when operating vehicles?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

So if they aren't getting hit now, why does the PP think adding bike lanes will mean they will be getting hit in the future?

Because you will be inducing 3000 kids/adults per day to begin using bike lanes under the false characterization that they are “protected.”

You are premptively blaming the rape victim for what she is wearing. Maybe people need to be more observant when operating vehicles?

I've always though the 'ban cars' folks were a bridge too far, but the more I read this thread, the 'pro-car and pro-parking' folks are doing their best to convince me that cars are the real problem in DC. If we can't trust drivers with anything, then why have any around?

[Anonymous]

There are existing options such as Rock Creek for cyclists that are safe. They just don’t want to use them.

[Anonymous]

Is the e-bike rental lobby behind all this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the e-bike rental lobby behind all this?

ha ha ha

seriously

no

[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: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.

Kids are already getting hit.
Commuters are already getting hit.
Local residents are already getting hit.

They aren't going to get more hitter.

You do realize that DDOT has an active GIS system and no one is getting hit on upper CT avenue. Like absolutely no one.

Are you making stuff up? CT Ave seems insanely dangerous here: https://visionzero.dc.gov/pages/crash-analysis#analysis

That is the official DDOT dashboard for their GIS data. CT Ave is pretty much the only place people have died on in ward 3 the last few years (yes, one did die on the border with ward 2 on RCP; but that is another problematic commuter road). It already is a death trap.

By your standards we should completely shut down CT ave until we 100% redesign it. Or we should make it into an interstate and demolish all the nearby apartments and storefronts. Right now it straddles a dangerous middle ground. Make it either into a small surface street or make it into a proper highway and demolish the nearby homes and businesses!