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
Which is exactly why Connecticut, and all the other streets in DC like Connecticut, need bike lanes.
What about putting bike lanes on a dedicated part of the wide sidewalk, like in Europe? Thus no traffic lane impact on Connecticut and a lessened parking impact. Some space for outside cafe tables might be affected at the margins. Wouldn’t that be a way to address most needs?
At this point why should we put bike lanes anywhere? Their advocates are obnoxious nihilists that reject any sort of compromise and the demand just isn't there.
What compromise has been proposed and rejected? Could you not say the same thing about the opponents of bike lanes, that they're also obnoxious nihilists that reject any sort of compromise?
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
Which is exactly why Connecticut, and all the other streets in DC like Connecticut, need bike lanes.
What about putting bike lanes on a dedicated part of the wide sidewalk, like in Europe? Thus no traffic lane impact on Connecticut and a lessened parking impact. Some space for outside cafe tables might be affected at the margins. Wouldn’t that be a way to address most needs?
At this point why should we put bike lanes anywhere? Their advocates are obnoxious nihilists that reject any sort of compromise and the demand just isn't there.
Who is asking you to put any bike lanes anywhere? Bike lanes are DDOT's job, not yours.
This thread needs to be renamed “Conn Ave. Bike lanes are gone!” Because they are. Gone. Dead. Certainly for a long time. Council Chairman Mendelson supported the mayor and DDOT and rejected the report offered by Charles Allen that effectively would have required Option C bike lanes to be built.
Moreover, no one is going to fund Connecticut bike lanes ahead of public schools. Connecticut Bike lanes are not in the budget.
Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.
What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.
This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.
Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.
Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.
Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.
Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.
I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.
DP. I love would be able to see some logic behind Bowser’s approach - such as that by undermining participatory planning processes and ANCs so that she can get things done faster - but it’s hard to see what she is getting out of all this other than making people hate each other and eventually her too. I tended to give her the benefit of the doubt until she flip-flopped all over the map on school openings over COVID, pitting teachers against parents and endowing the city with a truancy and youth crime crisis. She’s not the worst mayor in DC’s history by a long stretch, but she’s not a leader, has no discernible vision for the city, is a terrible administrator, and is very hard to relate to. In retrospect, it’s not hard to understand how she was almost lost to a Republican in her first mayoral election.
It’s quaint that you think there was real “participatory planning” in the first place. There’s only just power. DDOT only conducts citizen engagement to either inform people of the decisions they have made or to pretend that they are taking community input seriously to justify decisions they have already made. DDOT made a decision that was met with significant resistance from the business community, who are more important than the cycling activists DDOT has been catering to, and as result their decision was overturned. It’s only the mayor’s fault to the extent that she appoints DDOT leadership and DDOT leadership did a bad job of protecting the mayors interests. It’s probably why Everett Lott isn’t there anymore. It’s not more complicated than that.
What is quaint is that you think it’s perfectly fine that elected representatives privilege “business interests” - in reality, a handful of corporate landlords desperately hankering for a return to 2019 amidst their complete denial that the world has moved on - over the ability of DC residents to travel throughout their city in an inexpensive, healthy, safe, and environmentally-friendly manner.
Even the Fleet Feet Fenty's oppose new bike lanes on major roads. The world has indeed moved on.
Has the climate crisis gone away? What about the shortage of lithium and other critical minerals? Have flying cars solved road congestion yet? Have gas prices and the burden they impose on working houses fallen off? Sounds like your head has moved on further into the sand.
Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not stop climate change, nor will they end racism.
Small changes are too small, they won't do anything. Big changes are too big, they're not feasible. I'm still waiting to hear if there are any changes that are juuuuuust right.
Similarly, we shouldn't do anything now, it's too soon. And after that, we shouldn't do anything, it's too late.
Yes, everyone that opposes a bike lane is a climate denier or working to prevent anything from happening to address climate change. Meanwhile, all of the bikers are saving the world, especially with their virtue-signaling! You guys are the bestest ever. Thank you for being so amazing, unlike us inferior plebes.
Not everyone who opposes a bike lane is a climate denier. Everyone who opposes a bike lane is opposing an action that will help to mitigate the effects of climate change. If more people biked and fewer people drove, that actually would help with climate change. Perhaps a few people who bike do so solely for the purpose of morally lording it over others, but it's not a common motivation. People who bike are not the best ever or the worst ever, but simply people like people generally are. Some people who bike are amazing, others aren't, just like people generally are. If you feel like someone is trying to make you feel like an inferior plebe, that's a you issue.
Please tell us all how much carbon dioxide emissions bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will save and show your math and assumptions.
So everyone wants to talk climate but no one is willing to put in the hard work to actually prove how these bike lanes would reduce ghgs. Figures.
You’re fundamentally unserious and a joke. But keep going.
I don't know what exactly you want. You asked for an estimate of the effect of bike lanes on carbon emissions and the link provides such an estimate, as well as the math and assumptions. That you respond to people who give you what you ask for with petty insults speaks volumes about your mental state.
You made a very specific and serious claim that the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are important to address climate change. You were asked to provide an estimate of the avoided emissions and your assumptions at arriving that estimate. You have responded with unserious post after unserious post. You don’t even seem capable of understanding how to construct such an estimate (here’s a hint, it is based on DDOT traffic estimates and not some random external website of dubious provenance). So forgive me for thinking that you are an unserious, self-serving nihilist that think invoking climate change will get you what you want. Probably would invoke racism too if you thought that would get you bike lanes.
That was one of their original arguments. That bike lanes would increase diversity.
There is pretty much no issue they haven't claimed bike lanes would solve. Think I'm joking? Earlier in this thread one of them said that bike lanes would bring peace to the middle east.
Bike Bros will throw anything at the wall, including that bike lanes will increase diversity, equity and inclusion. Density Bros do the same thing, arguing that ever more upscale, market rate condos will increase, you got it, DEI. They use whatever can help to sell to a DC audience the product or position that they are peddling (no pun intended).
As I was biking up Conn Ave in the forest hills area last night, I saw a young woman, black, who was biking down Conn Ave on a personal bike. I then caught up to an older Asian guy at the red light at Nebraska who was on a personal ebike. Finally, I passed on older black guy on a CaBi who was headed to the same place I was, the Safeway at ChCh.
None of us were wearing spandex either, ahole.
You all can't even help yourselves, can you?
+1. I’ve lived on the corridor for 30+ years and have never seen any of the characters described above. Let alone within a few minutes of each other. It’s a remarkable fantasy.
That's just because you're also selectively blind, apparently.
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.
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 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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
Pretty sure both posts were made by the same poster.
Anyone who is out here saying that there aren't people on mopeds doing food delivery is remarkably unobservant.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
I don't need an article in the WaPo to tell me what can already be seen for months with my own two eyes by just walking down 18th street in AdMo or Conn Ave in Woodley and seeing the huge amount of mopeds hanging outside of any establishment to pick up people's food for them to hand deliver, jerk.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
Pretty sure both posts were made by the same poster.
Anyone who is out here saying that there aren't people on mopeds doing food delivery is remarkably unobservant.
What interest do you have in trying to or pretending to vouch for the bonafides of someone who obviously doesn’t live in the area? Do you live in the area? Are you the same poster? I’m going to guess no and yes. Honestly sad behavior.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
Pretty sure both posts were made by the same poster.
Anyone who is out here saying that there aren't people on mopeds doing food delivery is remarkably unobservant.
What interest do you have in trying to or pretending to vouch for the bonafides of someone who obviously doesn’t live in the area? Do you live in the area? Are you the same poster? I’m going to guess no and yes. Honestly sad behavior.
Give it up. There was nothing clear in that post that indicated they weren't local. Most local people do not order doordash as much as you seem to. Speaking of which, it's none of my business but you should probably order less delivery.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
Pretty sure both posts were made by the same poster.
Anyone who is out here saying that there aren't people on mopeds doing food delivery is remarkably unobservant.
What interest do you have in trying to or pretending to vouch for the bonafides of someone who obviously doesn’t live in the area? Do you live in the area? Are you the same poster? I’m going to guess no and yes. Honestly sad behavior.
Give it up. There was nothing clear in that post that indicated they weren't local. Most local people do not order doordash as much as you seem to. Speaking of which, it's none of my business but you should probably order less delivery.
If you live in the area and think that the majority of food delivery is done by Venezuelans on mopeds then you are a moron. You’re free to pick whether you are a moron or a liar. It’s your choice.
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.
Usually it’s a Venezuelan on a moped, but okay.
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?
DP. Nah, anybody who posts a photo from that silly demonstration by the No No Bike Lanes On Conn Ave group, in the pedestrianized area they opposed the pedestrianization of, is a local.
You’re conflating two different posts. Anyone that is out here saying that most food delivery drivers are Venezuelans on mopeds hasn’t set foot in the city.
Pretty sure both posts were made by the same poster.
Anyone who is out here saying that there aren't people on mopeds doing food delivery is remarkably unobservant.
What interest do you have in trying to or pretending to vouch for the bonafides of someone who obviously doesn’t live in the area? Do you live in the area? Are you the same poster? I’m going to guess no and yes. Honestly sad behavior.
Give it up. There was nothing clear in that post that indicated they weren't local. Most local people do not order doordash as much as you seem to. Speaking of which, it's none of my business but you should probably order less delivery.
If you live in the area and think that the majority of food delivery is done by Venezuelans on mopeds then you are a moron. You’re free to pick whether you are a moron or a liar. It’s your choice.
Tell me more about the demographic makeup of doordash and taskrabbit delivery drivers. How often do you use these services? What is the tipping ettiquette? How do you afford paying a service charge and delivery fee for everything? It's all so fascinating. Is this the imagined future lifestyle? There's so much that I want to know.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
