Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This vision you have for the city as a place where everyone can drive everywhere and always have parking available right where they want it is not going to happen. And if we're being honest, it never was a thing.

Striving for it is killing people and ruining the environment.

That absolutely shouldn’t be the vision for the whole city. But for the residential areas, it should be. Great cities strike that balance.

Oh please. In what "great city" can you drive to run errands and rely on finding street parking right where you want it at any time of day? Scottsdale, AZ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be the death knell for many of the businesses on Connecticut Avenue in Cleveland Park. I haven't eaten at a restaurant there since they closed the service road, because it is now impossible to park after 4 pm. When they take away the rest of the parking, it will also be impossible to patronize the dry cleaners or Yes or any of the other businesses there even during the day, for those of us who are elders, disabled, or otherwise unable to pedal a bike or walk a significant distance with groceries or packages. (Much of Cleveland Park is significantly uphill from the avenue, fwiw.) Meantime, the restaurants and other businesses at Cathedral Commons are thriving, because there is ample parking at any time of day. Bike lines are great in concept, but they definite preference the relatively few and able-bodied.

1) studies show businesses benefit from bike lanes, not suffer, so your supposition is anecdotal at best and
2) if you already don't go to Cleveland Park, then the addition of bike lanes won't impact whether you support those businesses, or not.

That said, do you know where most of the support to Conn Ave business come from? All the people who live in the immediate vicinity of Connecticut Avenue. All of those high density buildings from Woodley Park to Chevy Chase have tens of thousands of residents, many more than all of the single family homes that are adjacent to the Avenue. The businesses should be making it a priority to cater to those residents rather than submit to the Maryland commuters who never give a thought to stopping at the businesses on their way out of the city.

There are no studies that show that “business benefit from bike lanes”. It’s a claim that’s repeated but not supported by any academic study so far.

Re (2), if you read carefully you'll see I said that I do support those businesses during the day, when I can use the curbside metered parking on Conn. Ave., which is available until 4pm. Under the new plan, that parking will go away.

If there's enough demand then someone will build a parking garage. Why are you looking for a free handout?

Seriously? “Someone” will build a parking lot? And how is wanting a place to park in order to patronize a business looking for a free handout? I am happy to pay for parking, just as I do now at the meters. What I want is for my tax dollars to support the many and not the few.

There is plenty of parking, but you may need to walk a little more.

That is an ableist, throw away comment.

The parking on the avenue should be only for people who need it - the elderly and ADA needs. If you can drive, then you can park and walk the 40 feet around the corner to get to a store. Or, you can take a cab, or a bus, or an uber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

Or we can ditch all the cars, since that is the source of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.C. started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think that after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars on bike lanes, if bicycling was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. And yet all these bike lanes are mostly empty. The number of people who actually use them is pathetically small.

People here just aren't into bikes. The only people who use the bike lines are a tiny number of white guys from Ward 3.

False.

And condescending, and insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.C. started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think that after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars on bike lanes, if bicycling was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. And yet all these bike lanes are mostly empty. The number of people who actually use them is pathetically small.

People here just aren't into bikes. The only people who use the bike lines are a tiny number of white guys from Ward 3.

Tell me you don't see Black and Hispanic people without saying it directly...

DP: You already made it clear that you don't care about the elderly, disabled or mobility impaired.

You mean the wealthy elderly, disabled, or mobility impaired?

Because you're not thinking of the economically disadvantaged elderly, disabled, or mobility impaired. Think, electric wheelchairs and the bus or Metro access. Not a private car.

It's not uncommon for me to bike behind someone in an electric wheelchair in a bike lane. And I'm good with that setup too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

Well, people like you drive two blocks to park in front of my house to take the metro. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.C. started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think that after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars on bike lanes, if bicycling was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. And yet all these bike lanes are mostly empty. The number of people who actually use them is pathetically small.

People here just aren't into bikes. The only people who use the bike lines are a tiny number of white guys from Ward 3.

Tell me you don't see Black and Hispanic people without saying it directly...

DP: You already made it clear that you don't care about the elderly, disabled or mobility impaired.

If you need to be able to park, go somewhere with lots of parking. From Upper NW you can drive easily to Maryland malls where parking is more plentiful.

If you were relying on street parking to run errands you probably weren't that mobility impaired to begin with, as getting street parking is always a gamble

If you want to ride your bike, move to the suburbs -- go find a quiet street in a quiet neighborhood when you can ride to your heart's content. This is a major city. It's not safe to ride a bike here and it will never be safe. You're free to take whatever chances with your life that you like, but if you ride a bike in DC, you should fully expect to be a hit by a car sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

Wow such hate and hyperbole all rolled up in to one happy package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This is like listening to someone who has been addicted to crack since the 1980s advocate for decriminalization of the drug because the withdrawal would be too hard for them to handle.

The car dependence of boomers has royally screwed up urban culture, national politics, and the whole damn global environment for future generations. And now you want to stop local governments from taking marginal steps to fix the situation because getting your stuff delivered would cost too much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

The funny thing is, there are a lot of people who, you know, actually do these things. It is just ridiculous that they are your neighrbors and you don't see them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This is like listening to someone who has been addicted to crack since the 1980s advocate for decriminalization of the drug because the withdrawal would be too hard for them to handle.

The car dependence of boomers has royally screwed up urban culture, national politics, and the whole damn global environment for future generations. And now you want to stop local governments from taking marginal steps to fix the situation because getting your stuff delivered would cost too much?

This.

It is clear we cannot build our way out of exurban traffic jams and the follow on car back-ups on our older roads that were not designed for the capacity they are carrying. We HAVE to transition to a different mobility split, the sooner the better.

The Boomers have really screwed our world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

When I lived in Capitol Hill we biked as a family all the time and felt very safe. Bc Cap Hill has good bike lanes. Nothing is perfectly safe (including DRIVING EVERYWHERE) and biking makes a ton of sense as a way to get around in a city. We should work to make it safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.C. started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think that after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars on bike lanes, if bicycling was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. And yet all these bike lanes are mostly empty. The number of people who actually use them is pathetically small.

People here just aren't into bikes. The only people who use the bike lines are a tiny number of white guys from Ward 3.

Tell me you don't see Black and Hispanic people without saying it directly...

Oh brother. I love when these entitled white guys pretend what they want is really actually for black and brown people. (If you ever visit Ward 8, you'll notice there are no bike lanes, though I'm sure you've never been.) Anyway, just look at surveys of who rides bikes in DC. It's upper income white guys between the ages of 25 and 45. I live in a mostly black neighborhood and there are very few bike lanes and we like it that way.

Funny, when I am in Anacostia, Deanwood, Hill East, Petworth etc I see tons of people of all shapes, sizes and colors, riding bikes. Maybe get out of your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

Wow such hate and hyperbole all rolled up in to one happy package.

It sucks for the kids because their parents are old enough to know better. But the kids didnt choose to be born to morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This vision you have for the city as a place where everyone can drive everywhere and always have parking available right where they want it is not going to happen. And if we're being honest, it never was a thing.

Striving for it is killing people and ruining the environment.

That absolutely shouldn’t be the vision for the whole city. But for the residential areas, it should be. Great cities strike that balance.

Connecticut Avneue is a commercial corridor, so I am glad you support a bike lane there. If you want to ban them in Hawthorn, then god bless. No one wants to ride over there anyhow.