Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

Other cities and countries have adapted and mandate much smaller trucks and vans coming into their cities for routine deliveries. There is no reason for Semi's to be on our roads all the time, other than fuel for gas stations and the moving trucks. Food deliveries, restocking 7-11's etc can easily and more efficiently be done with box trucks and smaller vans.

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

Food is goods, no? The thing they're delivering is food. Food is what's being delivered. Multiple transportation modes can be used for the delivery of food.

Also, when more people transport themselves on foot or by scooter, skateboard, bicycle, bus, or Metro, then there is more space on the road for the transportation of food by truck.

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

An e-bike that was manufactured in China and shipped to DC on a series of trucks.

Guess we need to start developing apartment balcony smelters.

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

An e-bike that was manufactured in China and shipped to DC on a series of trucks.

Guess we need to start developing apartment balcony smelters.

As far as I know, DDOT has never proposed banning trucks from Connecticut Ave NW.

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

Who could ever dream of such things?

[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:The same mindset is thinking and planning bike lane for South Dakota Ave. NE. IT is Time to recall all these politicians.

Why shouldn't SD Ave have a bike lane? It is a ridiculously dangerous road with very narrow sidewalks.

Its more a question of priorities. If you can only build X miles of bike lanes a year, is this the one you want to do? Why?

Is this one of the ones you don't want to do? Why?

Which one do you want to do? Why?

It doesn't connect to any other existing parts of the network. Its southernmost limit is a highway on-ramp. The retail it would sort of connect to isn't really suitable for bike trips (Costco + Lowes). Its a heavily used commuter and truck route. Likely usage would be minimal.

"It's a heavily used commuter and truck route" is a reason FOR bike lanes.

Which one do you want to do?

You haven't answered why it makes sense to do SD, so why would I engage in a sidetrack of a sidetrack?

To demonstrate that there is at least one bike lane project you are for.

It makes sense to have bike lanes on South Dakota Ave NE because it's a street that lots of people use to get places - as you (or whoever the PP was) explained.

So to you any busy road should have a bike lane? That's a great way to prioritize building a network... I'm starting to agree with the carbrains here, you people aren't serious.

To humor you, just looking at near by NE, I would support: Extending the Franklin/Monroe/Taylor lanes eastward, upgrading and extending the 18th street route, connecting the Arboretum to an existing route, create an Eastern-Galatin route which you could eventually link to the MBT/Fort Totten. Even doing Rhode Island makes more sense than SD.

By "busy", you mean: lots of drivers. Yes, if there are lots of drivers using a street, that shows that the street is useful for people who are going places, and that means it should also be safe and comfortable for people who are going places by bike. And yes, it is a great way to prioritize building a network.

Are there any actual bike lane projects, proposed by DDOT, that you support?

By this logic, DC should be removing vehicle lanes on I-395 to build bike lanes.

I-395 is not a street, it's a highway in the interstate highway system, and pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed.

Connecticut Avenue and South Dakota Avenue are streets, and pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed. It is inappropriate for streets to prioritize driving over all other modes of transportation.

CT and SD are arterial roads specifically. It takes a lot more work to get bike lanes to work on arterials. They are largely unnecessary on most local roads, which leaves collector roads as the sweet spot. I really wish DDOT and "bike bros" would focus their efforts there.

Alternatively, arterials AND collectors. Keeping in mind that both terms describe cars and really are not appropriate for use in a transportation system that is supposed to prioritize safety and use by all modes.

Not to be pedantic but the number one priority and purpose of any transportation system is obviously transportation.

Of course! Transportation of people and goods. We need to stop acting as though the purpose of a transportation system were to transport cars and trucks.

Sometimes it seems some people on this thread believe that the food they they consume must magically arrive only from a Door Dash guy on an e-bike.

The economy of lower Manhattan was once dependent on train tracks that delivered produce to markets along the Lower East Side via today’s High Line. Lower Manhattan seems to have done fine without them. Point being that transport systems evolve.

[Anonymous]

I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

You should look up some estimates for driving vs biking times around this city. My bike commute is actually faster than a driving commute would be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

This is an ironic stance given that endemic automotive dependence has given us exactly that which you say you don't want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

That's fine. You can keep driving, if you want. Nobody is taking your car away from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

You should look up some estimates for driving vs biking times around this city. My bike commute is actually faster than a driving commute would be

There's more to this region than just DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

You should look up some estimates for driving vs biking times around this city. My bike commute is actually faster than a driving commute would be

There's more to this region than just DC

There is, but this discussion is about bike lanes in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

You should look up some estimates for driving vs biking times around this city. My bike commute is actually faster than a driving commute would be

There's more to this region than just DC

There is, but this discussion is about bike lanes in DC.

And Connecticut is one of the main routes connecting DC to the broader region

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

That's fine. You can keep driving, if you want. Nobody is taking your car away from you.

Except that your compatriots want to do that too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just not interested in your digital Amish lifestyle. Transportation is supposed to reduce the time distance and create connections between disparate geographic areas not increase time distance and separation.

That's fine. You can keep driving, if you want. Nobody is taking your car away from you.

Except that your compatriots want to do that too

no, we don't.