Bike lanes that literally no one uses -- why are we still doing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Well, my DC street has been one demonstrably less safe every weekday between 4pm and 6pm. So, nice job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Around 40% of DCs total property tax revenue is from office buildings. Commuters account for more than 10% of all sales tax revenue. Good luck funding the local government without considering the needs of office workers and commuters. The office worker commuters contribute significantly to the DC tax revenue base and they use hardly any local government resources.

Look at the plates of cars in the city. It’s 75% or more non-DC plates at any given moment. That’s actually a huge financial burden. It’s a real question if car commuters are a net positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Around 40% of DCs total property tax revenue is from office buildings. Commuters account for more than 10% of all sales tax revenue. Good luck funding the local government without considering the needs of office workers and commuters. The office worker commuters contribute significantly to the DC tax revenue base and they use hardly any local government resources.

I'm a D.C. office worker and I doubt I contribute significantly to the city's tax base aside from my D.C. income tax. Are the sales taxes on my $15 salads really what's keeping the city running?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Around 40% of DCs total property tax revenue is from office buildings. Commuters account for more than 10% of all sales tax revenue. Good luck funding the local government without considering the needs of office workers and commuters. The office worker commuters contribute significantly to the DC tax revenue base and they use hardly any local government resources.

I'm a D.C. office worker and I doubt I contribute significantly to the city's tax base aside from my D.C. income tax. Are the sales taxes on my $15 salads really what's keeping the city running?

Your salads don’t really move the needle. But the $1000 lobbyist lunches and $3000 dinners sure do. And those folks aren’t riding metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Well, my DC street has been one demonstrably less safe every weekday between 4pm and 6pm. So, nice job.

Which street is that?

In any case, the installation of the bike lanes didn’t change the carrying capacity of the road at all. Demonstrably. And I believe that has been pointed out to you and/or your neighbors.

The increase in traffic volumes and diversions is explained by RTO mandates and the state of the GW Parkway.

But I guess pushing a false narrative so that you can stick it to the families who want to be able to ride around their neighborhood safely is more fun for you than trying to understand what is really going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Well, my DC street has been one demonstrably less safe every weekday between 4pm and 6pm. So, nice job.

Which street is that?

In any case, the installation of the bike lanes didn’t change the carrying capacity of the road at all. Demonstrably. And I believe that has been pointed out to you and/or your neighbors.

The increase in traffic volumes and diversions is explained by RTO mandates and the state of the GW Parkway.

But I guess pushing a false narrative so that you can stick it to the families who want to be able to ride around their neighborhood safely is more fun for you than trying to understand what is really going on.

Yeah, we’re gonna put you in the “mostly peaceful protest” view of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Around 40% of DCs total property tax revenue is from office buildings. Commuters account for more than 10% of all sales tax revenue. Good luck funding the local government without considering the needs of office workers and commuters. The office worker commuters contribute significantly to the DC tax revenue base and they use hardly any local government resources.

Pandering to suburban commuters is about the dumbest thing that any city government can do.

Some of the worst times in DC’s history came with the flight to the suburbs in the 70s and 80s.

The city’s resurgence in the 00s and 10s came about as the result of attracting people back to central areas of the city like NoMA, Navy Yard, and so on.

Nobody - in the city or the suburbs - wants to live on streets that they cannot walk or bike along safely. So, yes, a key element in growing the city’s population - and its financial base - is traffic calming and all those things that suburban commuters find so pesky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is full American idiocy on display. And not only that, but doubling down on it too.

American car culture sucks ass, and so does American urban planning.

Traditional American urban planning absolutely does not suck it is thw best part of America. The end result of Urbanist lunacy promoted by YIMBYs and biker bros is everyone living tiny expensive Soviet style apartments towers. Don’t ruin the suburbs you don’t even live in with mixed used 24 hour bars (in residential neighborhoods) and high density apartments.

If suburbanism really was that great, you wouldn't be here complaining about a few bike lanes in DC.

Obviously you and your neighbors hate your commutes and are absolutely miserable from it, and you can't stand the idea of anyone not being as miserable as you. Especially those city folks.

Sorry your plan to live 30 miles from work and hurtle into town in a 5,000 pound SUV isn't working out like you dreamed. Maybe you would be less stressed out if you worked in the same burb that you live? Then you wouldn't have to face the two-wheeled scourge.

I’m complaining about bike lanes because they are trying to put them in my suburban area where no one will use them. They are poorly utilized in DC and it doesn’t even make sense to put them there either.

We have bike lanes out here in suburbia too. Storck uses them once or twice a year for his tours of south county. Completely worth it!

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/mountvernon/tourdemountvernon.htm

Note, our area has been rebranded Potomac Banks to make it more attractive.

To be fair, you also have roads out there that aren't really used much. However that's seen as a good thing and advertised as a "quiet street" or some other euphemism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Arizona Avenue seem purely punitive on Virginia drivers. My fellow DC neighbors hate them because they’ve pushed traffic into the neighborhoods. The Connecticut Ave residents were smart to fight that proposal.

Punitive for Virginia drivers?

Arizona Ave is a residential street. The elected neighborhood commission voted to support the bike lanes unanimously.

DC transportation policy should prioritize the safety of local residents, not the convenience of suburban commuters.

Well, my DC street has been one demonstrably less safe every weekday between 4pm and 6pm. So, nice job.

Which street is that?

In any case, the installation of the bike lanes didn’t change the carrying capacity of the road at all. Demonstrably. And I believe that has been pointed out to you and/or your neighbors.

The increase in traffic volumes and diversions is explained by RTO mandates and the state of the GW Parkway.

But I guess pushing a false narrative so that you can stick it to the families who want to be able to ride around their neighborhood safely is more fun for you than trying to understand what is really going on.

Yeah, we’re gonna put you in the “mostly peaceful protest” view of reality.

Of course. It’s much easier for you to sling silly insults than engage the facts.

[Anonymous]

The irony of complaining about traffic while driving even though you are the traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony of complaining about traffic while driving even though you are the traffic.

There wasn’t any traffic until we took away one lane in each direction on a four lane road and made them bike lanes. Then suddenly, there was traffic. Weird how that happened, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC needs revenue. The city should require all bikes that go on roads to register and have a machine readable license plate, so when they speed downhill/blow through stop signs and red lights the city can issue tickets like they do for cars. want to use the road? then obey the law

The goal of most drivers is to make sure everyone is as unfree and miserable as they are. No one can escape. Crabs in a bucket mentality.

There's been multiple cyclists going around groping women. They count on the fact that, without license plates, they can't be readily identified. Sounds like you're totally cool with people committing sexual assault so long as they're on a bike when they do it.

Cyclists need license plates, and also insurance.

If ever you want a reminder of just how batty the velophobe set has become, this is a good place to start.

There's something very Trump-y about cyclists in DC. They dont think they have to follow *any* of the rules that everyone else respects and everything is always someone else's fault. Like Trump, they act like a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

Cyclists don’t think we need insurance or license plates on bikes because, according to the rules that everyone respects, we don’t. I do have insurance, license plates, and identification for when I’m driving. I don’t need those things on my bike or when I walk or take Metro. I don’t think it’s spoiled or entitled not to comply with your imaginary alternative regulatory scheme that requires insurance and more bureaucracy for bicycles that are very unlikely to cause any damage to anyone except the cyclist.

I actually started thinking through the implications of requiring cyclists to carry insurance and affix license plates to their bikes and, after a couple of seconds, realized that it was such an incredibly silly idea that only someone trying to parody the anti-bike folks would put it forth.

I mean, many cars that are driven dangerously in DC have obscured, fake, or no plates and potentially no insurance, but the problem is a lack of insurance and plates on bikes? Nice trolling . . .

it would be better for everyone if cyclists weren't allowed to be anonymous and unidentifiable on the road.

Why would that be better? How often do authorities need to be able to identify cyclists?

I see cyclists put children in spectacularly dangerous situations on a fairly regular basis. I saw one with an infant in the basket on the front of her bike. It would be great if they could be readily identified to the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC needs revenue. The city should require all bikes that go on roads to register and have a machine readable license plate, so when they speed downhill/blow through stop signs and red lights the city can issue tickets like they do for cars. want to use the road? then obey the law

The goal of most drivers is to make sure everyone is as unfree and miserable as they are. No one can escape. Crabs in a bucket mentality.

There's been multiple cyclists going around groping women. They count on the fact that, without license plates, they can't be readily identified. Sounds like you're totally cool with people committing sexual assault so long as they're on a bike when they do it.

Cyclists need license plates, and also insurance.

If ever you want a reminder of just how batty the velophobe set has become, this is a good place to start.

There's something very Trump-y about cyclists in DC. They dont think they have to follow *any* of the rules that everyone else respects and everything is always someone else's fault. Like Trump, they act like a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

Cyclists don’t think we need insurance or license plates on bikes because, according to the rules that everyone respects, we don’t. I do have insurance, license plates, and identification for when I’m driving. I don’t need those things on my bike or when I walk or take Metro. I don’t think it’s spoiled or entitled not to comply with your imaginary alternative regulatory scheme that requires insurance and more bureaucracy for bicycles that are very unlikely to cause any damage to anyone except the cyclist.

I actually started thinking through the implications of requiring cyclists to carry insurance and affix license plates to their bikes and, after a couple of seconds, realized that it was such an incredibly silly idea that only someone trying to parody the anti-bike folks would put it forth.

I mean, many cars that are driven dangerously in DC have obscured, fake, or no plates and potentially no insurance, but the problem is a lack of insurance and plates on bikes? Nice trolling . . .

it would be better for everyone if cyclists weren't allowed to be anonymous and unidentifiable on the road.

Why would that be better? How often do authorities need to be able to identify cyclists?

It took the cops 17 months to identify a cyclist who had groped at least 10 women. They never got a good look at him because he would speed off. If he had a license plate, it wouldn't have taken 17 months to figure out who he was and a lot of sexual assaults could have been prevented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC needs revenue. The city should require all bikes that go on roads to register and have a machine readable license plate, so when they speed downhill/blow through stop signs and red lights the city can issue tickets like they do for cars. want to use the road? then obey the law

The goal of most drivers is to make sure everyone is as unfree and miserable as they are. No one can escape. Crabs in a bucket mentality.

There's been multiple cyclists going around groping women. They count on the fact that, without license plates, they can't be readily identified. Sounds like you're totally cool with people committing sexual assault so long as they're on a bike when they do it.

Cyclists need license plates, and also insurance.

If ever you want a reminder of just how batty the velophobe set has become, this is a good place to start.

There's something very Trump-y about cyclists in DC. They dont think they have to follow *any* of the rules that everyone else respects and everything is always someone else's fault. Like Trump, they act like a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

Cyclists don’t think we need insurance or license plates on bikes because, according to the rules that everyone respects, we don’t. I do have insurance, license plates, and identification for when I’m driving. I don’t need those things on my bike or when I walk or take Metro. I don’t think it’s spoiled or entitled not to comply with your imaginary alternative regulatory scheme that requires insurance and more bureaucracy for bicycles that are very unlikely to cause any damage to anyone except the cyclist.

I actually started thinking through the implications of requiring cyclists to carry insurance and affix license plates to their bikes and, after a couple of seconds, realized that it was such an incredibly silly idea that only someone trying to parody the anti-bike folks would put it forth.

I mean, many cars that are driven dangerously in DC have obscured, fake, or no plates and potentially no insurance, but the problem is a lack of insurance and plates on bikes? Nice trolling . . .

it would be better for everyone if cyclists weren't allowed to be anonymous and unidentifiable on the road.

Why would that be better? How often do authorities need to be able to identify cyclists?

It took the cops 17 months to identify a cyclist who had groped at least 10 women. They never got a good look at him because he would speed off. If he had a license plate, it wouldn't have taken 17 months to figure out who he was and a lot of sexual assaults could have been prevented.

I’m sorry to have to break it to you but you lack the reasoning skills to contribute meaningfully to discussions about public policy. I would otherwise be inclined to explain why everything you wrote is completely daft, but it seems you also lack the integrity to consider any points that might serve to undermine your very peculiar worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city installed a protected bike lane on a road I've driven on every day for many years. They took out a car lane to do it. Now, traffic on the road is a lot worse. In the maybe six months since it was installed, I have seen a grand total of two bicyclists use it. During that same time, I must have seen many thousands of drivers on that same road. How on earth does this make any sense?

It was a parking lane, one that was underused at that.