Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

Get your vision checked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

Get your vision checked.

My vision is fine. You seem to be having hallucinations, might want to up your medication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

PP will not wait patiently because PP is apparently unable to see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

omg THIS. the amount of energy expended on opposing basic infrastructure improvements on a *single block* in our ANC was absolutely demented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

It's called math. The ratio of cars to bikes on Connecticut is 1000:1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

Apparently we didn't, if we're still prioritizing car parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

It's called math. The ratio of cars to bikes on Connecticut is 1000:1.

We shouldn't have bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

It is faster, easier and healthier for me to bike than make my way to a metro station and ride to a place and then walk/bike to my destination, which may or may not be on top of a metro.

I could say the same thing about you and driving, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

It's called math. The ratio of cars to bikes on Connecticut is 1000:1.

We shouldn't have bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut because there aren't bike lanes on Connecticut because people don't bike on Connecticut

You might want to talk to your armchair optometrist friend.

[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.

But we've had to use Connecticut as an evacuation route, what, once in the last 50 years, on 9/11? Sort of feels like a relatively unimportant feature of the road. (Though, that's easy for me to say, I could just walk home from downtown if I had to; it's about six miles, easily manageable if I had no alternative... and I also stayed at my office downtown on 9/11 rather than evacuate anyway.)