Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could the bike lanes fit on Reno Rd? That’s a solution that might make everyone happy since it’s a scenic north-south residential street.

No, they couldn't.

And, there are no shops and restaurants on reno road, so why would anyone want to ride there?

Biking in this context is transportation, not recreation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

Yes, that is what the interim director said yesterday. Instead of 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes, DDOT is going to life all parking restrictions so there is parking on both sides 24/7. That is their proposed "road diet."

The result of course, is that the same traffic woes anticipated by the "save connecticut ave" group will be in play, without the added benefit of some drivers switching to biking instead. Under this scenario, you lose the easy access to sidewalks for the handicapped community, and buses will have to revert to the pulling in with the rear of the bus taking part of a lane at each stop. Add to it, bikers will still want to use the Avenue and will be within their rights to simply use a full lane, with resulting car back-ups behind them.

Well, this is now crazy. I feel like I was in the 98% of people that didn't give a rat's a** if they installed bike lanes or not...but how in the heck is this now the outcome?

because the goal has always been traffic calming. the anti-bike-obsessed refused to listen to this.

Indeed, and without the bike lanes, it’s a true win for pedestrians. The pro-bike-lane obsessed refused to listen to this.

Not really. It will still be a mostly unpleasant auto-centric traffic sewer

Adding another hazard (the bike lanes) would have been even worse.

Bike lanes increase sight distance. Parked cars reduce them. Legit this is way worse.

They’re adding bump outs. The sight distance will be increased and we won’t have to dodge the cyclists who can’t be bothered to stop or even slow down for pedestrians. It’s the best possible outcome if you care at all about pedestrian safety.

Bump ours that buses will have to navigate and ultimately preclude bus lanes in the future are a horrendous idea.

That's what they're going with and as a pedestrian I'll be happy for them as long as they last. Figure out how to ride your bike without threatening pedestrians and maybe then I'll support more bike lanes.

??? Bike lanes separate the bikers from pedestrians.

As it is with the Mayor's new proposal, you will see a lot more cyclists on the sidewalks.

[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:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

Yes, that is what the interim director said yesterday. Instead of 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes, DDOT is going to life all parking restrictions so there is parking on both sides 24/7. That is their proposed "road diet."

The result of course, is that the same traffic woes anticipated by the "save connecticut ave" group will be in play, without the added benefit of some drivers switching to biking instead. Under this scenario, you lose the easy access to sidewalks for the handicapped community, and buses will have to revert to the pulling in with the rear of the bus taking part of a lane at each stop. Add to it, bikers will still want to use the Avenue and will be within their rights to simply use a full lane, with resulting car back-ups behind them.

Well, this is now crazy. I feel like I was in the 98% of people that didn't give a rat's a** if they installed bike lanes or not...but how in the heck is this now the outcome?

because the goal has always been traffic calming. the anti-bike-obsessed refused to listen to this.

Indeed, and without the bike lanes, it’s a true win for pedestrians. The pro-bike-lane obsessed refused to listen to this.

Not really. It will still be a mostly unpleasant auto-centric traffic sewer

Adding another hazard (the bike lanes) would have been even worse.

Bike lanes increase sight distance. Parked cars reduce them. Legit this is way worse.

They’re adding bump outs. The sight distance will be increased and we won’t have to dodge the cyclists who can’t be bothered to stop or even slow down for pedestrians. It’s the best possible outcome if you care at all about pedestrian safety.

Bump ours that buses will have to navigate and ultimately preclude bus lanes in the future are a horrendous idea.

That's what they're going with and as a pedestrian I'll be happy for them as long as they last. Figure out how to ride your bike without threatening pedestrians and maybe then I'll support more bike lanes.

This makes the least sense. Bike lanes was how we'd be able to ride without interacting with pedestrians

This is why you're a menace. Crosswalks intersect with bike lanes all over the city. You interact with pedestrians all the time. But you don't see them because you're zoned out in your bike lane.

Thank you for explaining why im a menace. Who could forget all the times I've had an accident interacting with a pedestrian. If you add them all up, I think it would be zero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They built bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. Traffic is now more congested and the bike lanes are barely used.

It’s nice how you like to make things up. There was an actual study of this and it showed the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

Would you like a social security number as well?

The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.

There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

The Netherlands does have excellent bicycle infrastructure, but keep in mind they generally don't put bike lanes on main roads similar to Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

The Netherlands does have excellent bicycle infrastructure, but keep in mind they generally don't put bike lanes on main roads similar to Connecticut Ave.

Have you ever been there? They absolutely put bike lanes on major arteries. I know because I’ve ridden along them. Only those arteries are designed in a manner that regulates vehicle speed and provides a modicum of safety for all users. Their “main roads” are nothing similar to Connecticut Avenue and that’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the bike lanes fit on Reno Rd? That’s a solution that might make everyone happy since it’s a scenic north-south residential street.

No, they couldn't.

And, there are no shops and restaurants on reno road, so why would anyone want to ride there?

Biking in this context is transportation, not recreation.

In other words, if there aren't bars and sidewalk cafes to bike to, then the bike lane isn't of much use.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean we won't get our free e-bikes from the DC government now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

Imagine spending tens of thousands of dollars - and in the process emitting noxious chemicals that make life worse on the planet, endangering all manner of other road users, and consuming a vast array of public subsidies - on a commute that you could do for free on a bicycle or a few dollars on WMATA and then claiming others are entitled . . .

Your complete and utter lack of self-awareness is absolutely hysterical.

And your assumption that “everyone can and should bike or take WMATA” isn’t?

What a cute edge case. DC could build bike lanes until the cows come home and still have more than enough roads to accommodate the small proportion of suburban commuters who are physically unable to ride a bike, take WMATA, or carpool.

You love to make this about “suburban commuters” but plenty of people who live in the affected neighborhoods oppose adding bike lanes for a multitude of reasons.

I can make things too. But I won’t. In the real world, those neighborhoods elected ANC reps and a Councilmember that overwhelmingly supported the bike lanes. Proposal C, unlike the mayor’s diktat, was the product of a lengthy process of community consultation.

No one elects ANC reps. They just get 25 signatures and they get on the ballot unopposed. Stick to solving overflowing trash cans.

Ease up on the tailpipe bro, the fumes are getting to you

I love the prior ANCs who list “former ANC Commissioner” on their Twitter handles.

Where are the middle finger ANC commissioners now who Tweeted their photo with "we won, we're doing bike lanes on Connecticut Ave, f-- the ops"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

Imagine spending tens of thousands of dollars - and in the process emitting noxious chemicals that make life worse on the planet, endangering all manner of other road users, and consuming a vast array of public subsidies - on a commute that you could do for free on a bicycle or a few dollars on WMATA and then claiming others are entitled . . .

Your complete and utter lack of self-awareness is absolutely hysterical.

And your assumption that “everyone can and should bike or take WMATA” isn’t?

What a cute edge case. DC could build bike lanes until the cows come home and still have more than enough roads to accommodate the small proportion of suburban commuters who are physically unable to ride a bike, take WMATA, or carpool.

You love to make this about “suburban commuters” but plenty of people who live in the affected neighborhoods oppose adding bike lanes for a multitude of reasons.

I can make things too. But I won’t. In the real world, those neighborhoods elected ANC reps and a Councilmember that overwhelmingly supported the bike lanes. Proposal C, unlike the mayor’s diktat, was the product of a lengthy process of community consultation.

At least Mr Frumin will always have pickle ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now we need to ban cars off Connecticut Ave, for good measure

We'd rather see cars and trucks stay on Connecticut Avenue, Upper Northwest's main arterial, than have many more of them on Porter Street.

[Anonymous]

At least Mr Frumin will always have pickle ball.

What has he done there? I have not heard of any new courts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

Yes, that is what the interim director said yesterday. Instead of 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes, DDOT is going to life all parking restrictions so there is parking on both sides 24/7. That is their proposed "road diet."

The result of course, is that the same traffic woes anticipated by the "save connecticut ave" group will be in play, without the added benefit of some drivers switching to biking instead. Under this scenario, you lose the easy access to sidewalks for the handicapped community, and buses will have to revert to the pulling in with the rear of the bus taking part of a lane at each stop. Add to it, bikers will still want to use the Avenue and will be within their rights to simply use a full lane, with resulting car back-ups behind them.

Well, this is now crazy. I feel like I was in the 98% of people that didn't give a rat's a** if they installed bike lanes or not...but how in the heck is this now the outcome?

because the goal has always been traffic calming. the anti-bike-obsessed refused to listen to this.

Indeed, and without the bike lanes, it’s a true win for pedestrians. The pro-bike-lane obsessed refused to listen to this.

Not really. It will still be a mostly unpleasant auto-centric traffic sewer

Adding another hazard (the bike lanes) would have been even worse.

Bike lanes increase sight distance. Parked cars reduce them. Legit this is way worse.

They’re adding bump outs. The sight distance will be increased and we won’t have to dodge the cyclists who can’t be bothered to stop or even slow down for pedestrians. It’s the best possible outcome if you care at all about pedestrian safety.

This is smart. Bump outs will mean fewer cyclists who fly through red lights from the right field of vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

DP, but there are music studios in Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase, there are gyms with kids classes up and down the Avenue, there are schools that hold classes including UDC, Burke, Murch, Eaton, I mean, if you have kids and use the resources in the area, it is a lot easier to bike than drive and try to park, but biking is too dangerous.

OK. Murch and Eaton are on Reno Rd. Put a bike lane there.