upzoning: what will it really change?

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

DC was lucky to catch a generational millennial wave. Moving poor Black families out to replace with young, single white professionals is not a viable long term growth strategy. Being anti-kid will end up hurting the city long term, particularly as this millennial wave looks to form families. The millennials are trying hard to turn the city suburban, effectively turning neighborhoods into cul de sacs. This can never be effective in a city and will end with the families eventually leaving and a destroyed city in the process.

Cities are places where people, goods and services are to come together. That’s why most cities are located on important trade corridors where transportation is facilitated. People that want to end circulation in cities want to end the key role and purpose of cities. It’s really weird thinking how people who grew up in suburbs fetishizing cities are now trying to replicate the suburban experience in the city. Totally crazy.

It won’t hurt the city. People with kids will move and take the cost of educating those kids with them to their new houses. Those people will be replaced by other people without kids. DC’s only risk is if childless millennials start annoying themselves.

Are millennials just never going to start families? Are boomers not going to die?

The even more insane thing about this is that boomers are the least capable of handling increased congestion and the most impacted by extra traffic on the side streets.

I think the idea is either that once retired the folks in upper NW will be less mobile and not care or that they will be frustrated and leave (which I assume to be the real goal), which could free up a lot of land for upzoning and development. I personally don’t believe for a minute that the DC government does anything that doesn’t have the goal of profiting some donor or group or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

It's about density not speed. There are more vehicles per square foot and less room for anyone to manouever. It's fairly straight forward and easy to comprehend.

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

While I agree I don't see how that's relevent to upper Connecticut Avenue because nobody besides the one PP is biking on it.

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

Does the same logic apply to car accidents? Lots of people get killed in those every year, too.

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

Does the same logic apply to car accidents? Lots of people get killed in those every year, too.

Yes, of course it does.

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

DC was lucky to catch a generational millennial wave. Moving poor Black families out to replace with young, single white professionals is not a viable long term growth strategy. Being anti-kid will end up hurting the city long term, particularly as this millennial wave looks to form families. The millennials are trying hard to turn the city suburban, effectively turning neighborhoods into cul de sacs. This can never be effective in a city and will end with the families eventually leaving and a destroyed city in the process.

Cities are places where people, goods and services are to come together. That’s why most cities are located on important trade corridors where transportation is facilitated. People that want to end circulation in cities want to end the key role and purpose of cities. It’s really weird thinking how people who grew up in suburbs fetishizing cities are now trying to replicate the suburban experience in the city. Totally crazy.

It won’t hurt the city. People with kids will move and take the cost of educating those kids with them to their new houses. Those people will be replaced by other people without kids. DC’s only risk is if childless millennials start annoying themselves.

The DC school system would collapse if all the upper NW families pulled out. Sad, but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

That doesn't solve the problem of over capacity schools that can't handle additional students, police and fire stations already miles away, parking and roads designed for limited traffic.

That being said, the areas around metro stations and the new foxhall elementary school is ripe for increased density because of their soon to be excess school space. The main problem with upzoning is a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the social infrastructure is capped out and there is no land to build what would be needed.

everyone wants to stuff Ward 3 until it breaks. FYI - it has Deal and Wilson. But appease the whiners and build Foxhall. Yikes - worst locale ever: why not invest in schools that are failing ??

Stuff Ward 3? Ward 3 lags behind a lot of the rest of the city. It's Ward 6 that's been getting stuffed to the gills. So much so that the ward map had to be redistricted due to excessive Ward 6 growth. And they did it without meaningfully dealing with infrastructure or services needed to support growth. Meanwhile, contrary to all of the YIMBY and GGWash claims, despite a big increase in density and adding over 35,000 units and more people to W6 in the last 10 years, housing prices have NOT gone down. Housing prices in W6 have gone UP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

That doesn't solve the problem of over capacity schools that can't handle additional students, police and fire stations already miles away, parking and roads designed for limited traffic.

That being said, the areas around metro stations and the new foxhall elementary school is ripe for increased density because of their soon to be excess school space. The main problem with upzoning is a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the social infrastructure is capped out and there is no land to build what would be needed.

everyone wants to stuff Ward 3 until it breaks. FYI - it has Deal and Wilson. But appease the whiners and build Foxhall. Yikes - worst locale ever: why not invest in schools that are failing ??

Stuff Ward 3? Ward 3 lags behind a lot of the rest of the city. It's Ward 6 that's been getting stuffed to the gills. So much so that the ward map had to be redistricted due to excessive Ward 6 growth. And they did it without meaningfully dealing with infrastructure or services needed to support growth. Meanwhile, contrary to all of the YIMBY and GGWash claims, despite a big increase in density and adding over 35,000 units and more people to W6 in the last 10 years, housing prices have NOT gone down. Housing prices in W6 have gone UP.

Focusing on Wards 7 and 8 make the most sense. Encourage development there.