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:

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.

There are 24 miles of protected bike lanes. Paint that vehicles can and regularly do drive over and park on counts for next to nothing.

As of 2015, 4 percent of commuters biked and 40 percent drove or car-shared. DC would have to allocate a lot more space for bike and other non-car commuters before it even came close to giving non-drivers their fair share.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

[Anonymous]

There's so few cyclists that both the city and the Census Bureau throw them into a miscellaneous category.

When it comes to going to work in 2020, the Census Bureau says 37 percent of people here drove, 31.5 percent take public transportation, 12.5 percent walked, 12.3 percent worked from home and 6.7 percent either took cabs, motorcycles, rode bikes or used some other form of transportation.

That understates how many people are actually driving here, because Census is only talking to Washingtonians, and many of the people driving live in Maryland or Virginia but work here.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's so few cyclists that both the city and the Census Bureau throw them into a miscellaneous category.

When it comes to going to work in 2020, the Census Bureau says 37 percent of people here drove, 31.5 percent take public transportation, 12.5 percent walked, 12.3 percent worked from home and 6.7 percent either took cabs, motorcycles, rode bikes or used some other form of transportation.

That understates how many people are actually driving here, because Census is only talking to Washingtonians, and many of the people driving live in Maryland or Virginia but work here.

You mean people from MD or VA like you? Y’all don’t pay DC taxes. Y’all don’t even pay the tickets you accumulate while speeding through our city and parking all over the street. And for what reason should DC taxpayers listen to you about why they shouldn’t have infrastructure to protect themselves from your horrendous driving?

[Anonymous]

Washingtonian doesn’t mean people who actually live in Washington, DC? Or did you mean people from Washington state? I’m not sure of their relevance either.

[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/

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.

Ten thousand people seems more realistic if it was flat. Going uphill after a long day of work seems challenging for a lot of people. I expect current cyclists will not give grace to people struggling uphill, though I could be wrong. The other bike lanes don't have room for passing.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ten thousand people seems more realistic if it was flat. Going uphill after a long day of work seems challenging for a lot of people. I expect current cyclists will not give grace to people struggling uphill, though I could be wrong. The other bike lanes don't have room for passing.

There's only like 300 people who currently use the city's bike lanes. 10,000 seems a little, ah, ambitious, don't you think?

[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/

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.

Ten thousand people seems more realistic if it was flat. Going uphill after a long day of work seems challenging for a lot of people. I expect current cyclists will not give grace to people struggling uphill, though I could be wrong. The other bike lanes don't have room for passing.

It isn't that big a hill, and if one wants, they can use an ebike, which are amazing to ride. The big hills are like Tilden, Brandwine and Calvert.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

This is the K Street Transitway, which will be amazing as the H Street stretcar is expanded through downtown. I wouldn't label this as a bike project.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

This is regionally, not just in DC proper.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

These are a variety of capital projects for DDOT that include bike facilities. But it isn't solely for bike facilities.

[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:

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.

Or, in other words, you are making up ridiculous numbers because you place no value whatsoever on facts.

You could just look at the city's budget, moron.

Since you’ve apparently done this, you could tell us exactly what the number is and where to find it. Unless of course you haven’t done so, which you haven’t. Only someone two tries short of a happy meal would make such manifestly absurd claims about the cost of bike lanes and expect people to believe them. Please get the appropriate help.

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

These are capital projects that include bike facilities but are not solely bike facilities.