Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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 right, cars flying 60mph everywhere while pedestrians cower is manifest destiny.

[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.

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.

Stop with the Trumpian lies. We've all seen the posts demanding that DC be car free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Stop with the Trumpian lies. We've all seen the posts demanding that DC be car free.

I am a compatriot and do not demand dc is car free. Find some posts that prove me wrong

[Anonymous]

Live your iphone Amish lifestyle, I don't care. Just stop pushing it on everyone else. Put bike lanes where people bike and leave the main roads alone.

[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.

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.

Yet recent traffic studies in NYC indicate how much vehicle congestion has increased simply because of Uber and ride services, same-day Amazon deliveries (and truck traffic to/from warehouses), Door Dash, etc. We live in an instant gratification consumer economy, especially in cities, and most of it is dependent even more than before on vehicles. I think it's great that some people are car free and often bike to work or to daily activities. I also support bike trails and lanes where they make sense. But I'm also skeptical about claims from those who so ostentatiously virtue signal about their low carbon lifestyle and even call out those who disagree on Conn Ave bike lanes as climate change deniers and worse -- when their own carbon footprint extends to any number of third party daily delivery services to satisfy their expansive consumption.

[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: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.

Yet recent traffic studies in NYC indicate how much vehicle congestion has increased simply because of Uber and ride services, same-day Amazon deliveries (and truck traffic to/from warehouses), Door Dash, etc. We live in an instant gratification consumer economy, especially in cities, and most of it is dependent even more than before on vehicles. I think it's great that some people are car free and often bike to work or to daily activities. I also support bike trails and lanes where they make sense. But I'm also skeptical about claims from those who so ostentatiously virtue signal about their low carbon lifestyle and even call out those who disagree on Conn Ave bike lanes as climate change deniers and worse -- when their own carbon footprint extends to any number of third party daily delivery services to satisfy their expansive consumption.

I really don't understand the obsession over the consumption habits of anonymous individuals that are almost irrelevant to to the merits of competing policy options. It's a nihilistic rhetorical device that unfortunately has come to dominate online discussion.

But to your broader point, yes, delivery services are both carbon intensive and addictive. How we encourage these services to adopt smaller, greener, and safer vehicles is a pertinent policy question. Notably delivery services seem to make such adjustments where regulation encourages them to do so. I don't count on the DC government leading in this area anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Live your iphone Amish lifestyle, I don't care. Just stop pushing it on everyone else. Put bike lanes where people bike and leave the main roads alone.

Nah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sea of other roads, metro and other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sea of other roads, metro and other options.

There are few other arterials in Upper Northwest like Connecticut Avenue and none of them can easily carry a surge of diverted traffic. The "sea" of other roads you mention includes a large number of local DC streets where kids live, play and yes, bike.

[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: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.

Though, they are banned on parts of Connecticut in Maryland between the Beltway and the District line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sea of other roads, metro and other options.

There are few other arterials in Upper Northwest like Connecticut Avenue and none of them can easily carry a surge of diverted traffic. The "sea" of other roads you mention includes a large number of local DC streets where kids live, play and yes, bike.

They don't care. They don't care about safety. They don't care about kids. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about mass transit. And they don't care about transportation.

They are just a bunch of Veruca Salt's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sea of other roads, metro and other options.

There are few other arterials in Upper Northwest like Connecticut Avenue and none of them can easily carry a surge of diverted traffic. The "sea" of other roads you mention includes a large number of local DC streets where kids live, play and yes, bike.

They don't care. They don't care about safety. They don't care about kids. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about mass transit. And they don't care about transportation.

They are just a bunch of Veruca Salt's.

Nah. The guilt tripping and fearmongering wore off three threads ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Stop with the Trumpian lies. We've all seen the posts demanding that DC be car free.

Even if some people want to post anonymously insisting that D.C. should be car-free, obviously everyone knows that's never going to happen. So it doesn't really seem like it makes sense to demand that people who (a) disagree with those people but (b) still want to find a way to make it easier to bike on roads with a lot of car traffic should have to defend a random more extreme position than the one they actually espouse. I want bike lanes. I don't want D.C. to be car-free. I'm happy to argue about the bike lanes, but I don't really care what some people who also want the bike lanes say they want. They're not getting it. They're probably not getting the bike lanes, either, but at least the bike lanes are vaguely in the realm of public discussion, which "ban cars!" is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In a sea of other roads, metro and other options.

There are few other arterials in Upper Northwest like Connecticut Avenue and none of them can easily carry a surge of diverted traffic. The "sea" of other roads you mention includes a large number of local DC streets where kids live, play and yes, bike.

How will it carry a surge of traffic with bulbouts in the current curb lane and 24/7 parking on both sides as the Mayor's lackey has proposed?

[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: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.

Yet recent traffic studies in NYC indicate how much vehicle congestion has increased simply because of Uber and ride services, same-day Amazon deliveries (and truck traffic to/from warehouses), Door Dash, etc. We live in an instant gratification consumer economy, especially in cities, and most of it is dependent even more than before on vehicles. I think it's great that some people are car free and often bike to work or to daily activities. I also support bike trails and lanes where they make sense. But I'm also skeptical about claims from those who so ostentatiously virtue signal about their low carbon lifestyle and even call out those who disagree on Conn Ave bike lanes as climate change deniers and worse -- when their own carbon footprint extends to any number of third party daily delivery services to satisfy their expansive consumption.

I really don't understand the obsession over the consumption habits of anonymous individuals that are almost irrelevant to to the merits of competing policy options. It's a nihilistic rhetorical device that unfortunately has come to dominate online discussion.

But to your broader point, yes, delivery services are both carbon intensive and addictive. How we encourage these services to adopt smaller, greener, and safer vehicles is a pertinent policy question. Notably delivery services seem to make such adjustments where regulation encourages them to do so. I don't count on the DC government leading in this area anytime soon.

You can get point delivery in minutes by bike when you have the right infrastructure: