Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

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

Wait, is there one? Seriously? I only know of really big car lobby organizations.

[Anonymous]

Capital Bike Share is the only ebike "rental" I know of, but that is essentially a public utility as it is run by DDOT.

[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.

Funny how you didn't actually, you know, LINK to the GIS data you reference: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/crashes-in-dc/explore?location=38.964382%2C-77.072868%2C17.00

Seems like, I dunno, a lot of incidents on upper Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

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

Exactly. There is already a path all the way downtown to access the new bike lanes on Virginia avenue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I believe you. You seem honest and forthright. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.

[Anonymous]

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/

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.

That is correct. Nobody has claimed hundreda of thousands are suddenly going to take up commuter bicycling if two lanes of Connecticut Aveneue are removes. They've only claimed ten thousand will.

[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: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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

[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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Exactly. There is already a path all the way downtown to access the new bike lanes on Virginia avenue

This isn't about commuting downtown, it is about getting from one neighborhood to another, safely. Yes, some would use it to go downtown, but that isn't the stated goal. As such, Rock Creek Park is not an "alternative" - it is just a NIMBY red herring.

[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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

LOL, the actual privilege are the people who live in a neighborhood and ignored 3 years of engagement and now want a redo. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

There are 1,500 miles of road in DC and 24 miles of bike lanes. And cyclists, scooter riders, one-wheelers and everyone else who would use bike lanes are the ones who are “privileged”?

[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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

There are 1,500 miles of road in DC and 24 miles of bike lanes. And cyclists, scooter riders, one-wheelers and everyone else who would use bike lanes are the ones who are “privileged”?

Actually, there are more than 150 miles of recreational trails and bicycle lanes in the District. On a per user basis, that’s pretty generous.

[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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

There are 1,500 miles of road in DC and 24 miles of bike lanes. And cyclists, scooter riders, one-wheelers and everyone else who would use bike lanes are the ones who are “privileged”?

Actually, there are more than 150 miles of recreational trails and bicycle lanes in the District. On a per user basis, that’s pretty generous.

The city has spent billions on bike lanes that only 300 people or so use. So, yeah, pretty generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

There are 1,500 miles of road in DC and 24 miles of bike lanes. And cyclists, scooter riders, one-wheelers and everyone else who would use bike lanes are the ones who are “privileged”?

Actually, there are more than 150 miles of recreational trails and bicycle lanes in the District. On a per user basis, that’s pretty generous.

The city has spent billions on bike lanes that only 300 people or so use. So, yeah, pretty generous.

Billions? Care to give us a citation for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is actually EXACTLY the type of road that needs bike lanes. Look at every other city in America that is installing them, and look around the world. Why is Connecticut Avenue so unique that it is the wrong place, other than "because I said so"?

Connecticut is the exaxt opposite type of road this is being done on.

+1. This project will have major impacts across the city and between states, yet only the ANCs along the actual corridor were involved. The studies should be updated and engagement should be broadened. This whole process raises serious equity concerns and reeks of privilege.

There are 1,500 miles of road in DC and 24 miles of bike lanes. And cyclists, scooter riders, one-wheelers and everyone else who would use bike lanes are the ones who are “privileged”?

Actually, there are more than 150 miles of recreational trails and bicycle lanes in the District. On a per user basis, that’s pretty generous.

The city has spent billions on bike lanes that only 300 people or so use. So, yeah, pretty generous.

Billions? Care to give us a citation for that?

Look at the bills passed by the city council. Add up their cost. It's not hard.