Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public meeting today where DDOT must defend its decision to stop bike lanes.

The purpose of the meeting is for DDOT to propose their plan. I do sure hope that you and your friends use this opportunity to aggressively attack public servants doing their jobs. I’m sure that’s going to go well in your favor.

Oh I am so sorry. Isn't that what you just spent the last 3 years doing???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DP. This post indicate to me that you don’t live in the area. There was an article in the Washington Post about the rise of Venezuelans on motor scooters. However, while an interesting group to write about, represent only a small fraction of the app based food delivery drivers in the city. Why are you posting about something in a place that you don’t live and seem to know little about?

Dude, I am for the bike lanes, as my 19-year-old kid does door dash to help himself with tuition. But you are wring about the Venezuelans being a small fraction, they have taken it over using some very nasty methods. Including sharing accounts, and they are not on mopeds or e-bikes, they are on 100, 125, 175cc motorcycles that are unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured and routinely being driven on sidewalks, down one way streets the wrong way, etc and are a serious problem. It is essentially a mafia of illegals without licenses. They are also being very aggressive toward other door dash and uber eats delivery people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

What will occupy the new, leftover space? Car parking instead of bike lanes?

[Anonymous]

Imagine if our ANCs had spent the past five years advocating instead on the crime crisis, school overcrowding, and housing voucher mismanagement. Issues that actually impact the majority of residents along the corridor. What a better place this could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

The evacuation route is particularly egregious. Nothing like putting a few hundred multi-ton obstacles on an evacuation route. If we're serious about Connecticut being an evacuation route, then there should be no parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our ANCs had spent the past five years advocating instead on the crime crisis, school overcrowding, and housing voucher mismanagement. Issues that actually impact the majority of residents along the corridor. What a better place this could be.

Imagine if a small group of bicycle haters had spent the past five years advocating for literally any socially-helpful action, instead of against bike lanes on Connecticut Ave. What a better place this could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn't clear to people that there will not be dedicated bike lanes on Connecticut Ave, it is crystal clear now.

It’s been clear for 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

The evacuation route is particularly egregious. Nothing like putting a few hundred multi-ton obstacles on an evacuation route. If we're serious about Connecticut being an evacuation route, then there should be no parking.

I was thinking this yesterday, while stuck in my car (by myself) amidst lots of other cars (almost all of which also only had one occupant), and meanwhile people who were walking or bicycling or scootering were getting where they were going faster than me in my car. Just plain basic physics says that cars are a terrible way for lots of people to go the same place at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our ANCs had spent the past five years advocating instead on the crime crisis, school overcrowding, and housing voucher mismanagement. Issues that actually impact the majority of residents along the corridor. What a better place this could be.

You mistakenly believe that these people wanted to serve in order to help make their community better instead of serving a very specific ideological agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

What will occupy the new, leftover space? Car parking instead of bike lanes?

Yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our ANCs had spent the past five years advocating instead on the crime crisis, school overcrowding, and housing voucher mismanagement. Issues that actually impact the majority of residents along the corridor. What a better place this could be.

The ANCs can walk and chew gum. They did address these issues, but really, they are just ANCs. Every item you cite is a mayoral issue. Maybe if she was more focused on that rather than taking the city back to 1950's transportation planning, we would be better off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our ANCs had spent the past five years advocating instead on the crime crisis, school overcrowding, and housing voucher mismanagement. Issues that actually impact the majority of residents along the corridor. What a better place this could be.

Personally I am glad that the ANCs where I am (the Hill) have spent the effort on bike lanes and other vision zero projects. It is SO nice now. C St especially transformed from an ugly 6 ln highway into a really pretty avenue.