Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight...

Save Conn Ave pushed for years to get the bike lanes taken out of this project. They seem to have succeeded on that. But to what end exactly?

This stupid road is going to be 4 travel lanes at all times now. This isn't an improvement over the other idea, this is bullshit. My commute is going to get longer now driving from just north of the border through Conn because someone wants to park their car on the street outside of their apartment during rush hour? This is absurd. Even more absurd than the asinine bike lanes idea.

Can we just cancel all of this crap and go back to what we had before the pandemic. Yes, the reversible was confusing, but it worked when it was there and traffic moved freely.

It gets better.

By having parking lanes, people driving will be stuck waiting for cars to pull in and out of the curb spots. Cyclists and buses will be using that same lane that cars are using to stage parking from. Drivers will be slowing down searching for spots, inhibiting that lane. So for all intent and purposes, instead of two clear through lanes as Concept C proposed, this will be a parking lane, a second lane with buses, bike and parking cars, and then a through lane, with turn lanes at the big intersections.

The "cut through" traffic that the project opponents envisioned will not be mitigated by this plan.
The evacuation route excuse was just plain dumb, but certainly isn't aided by bulb-outs and cars using the curb lane.
Emergency vehicles, as DDOT noted, will have no issue with any configuration DDOT conjures up including both Concept C and this one.

But hey, they really stuck it to the bike bros, right?

Yeah, it sucks just as badly. This is what happens when you open Pandora's Box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the fixation with bike lanes on Connecticut? Wisconsin makes more sense for all the bike to neighborhood businesses and schools advocates. There are more students attending schools along the Wisconsin corridor and tons of businesses and a library to frequent. Let’s put dedicated bike lanes from Friendship Heights to Georgetown along Wisconsin. Makes much more sense.

Sounds good to me, I live right near Wisconsin. Though for getting downtown, it’s not as helpful — Connecticut goes farther east. Would connect to the L Street protected lane, though, so, sure, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight...

Save Conn Ave pushed for years to get the bike lanes taken out of this project. They seem to have succeeded on that. But to what end exactly?

This stupid road is going to be 4 travel lanes at all times now. This isn't an improvement over the other idea, this is bullshit. My commute is going to get longer now driving from just north of the border through Conn because someone wants to park their car on the street outside of their apartment during rush hour? This is absurd. Even more absurd than the asinine bike lanes idea.

Can we just cancel all of this crap and go back to what we had before the pandemic. Yes, the reversible was confusing, but it worked when it was there and traffic moved freely.

I don't see why you can't just take the Metro or a bus.

Wasn't that the suggestion for people who want to bike but don't like what it's like now?

PP here. Metro takes nearly 2 to 3 times as long is why, because I have to get a ride to Bethesda and then red line plus either transfer or walk a lot to my office which is off yellow/green. Driving there is just vastly quicker, even if it is more expensive. When the purple line comes, it won't change this to make it better.

[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:

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.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

You keep saying this and it simply isn't true. The stat you cite was COMMUTING, like daily, downtown. There are still hundreds of cyclists using Connecticut Avenue to go to school and run errands. Those are not factored in the MWCOG survey.

Firstly let's put this straight out in the open. You clearly don't live near or use Connecticut Ave, north of Calvert.

Secondly, the number comes from DDOT which counted the number of bicyclists, just as they did cars. They have never released the exact number but they used a de minimis number of 100 as their estimate. That means we know it is less than 100.

Please remember that all numbers are done on a full year daily average basis.

They counted in the street. Not the sidewalk. Also, they updated that low stat observed in 2019 in like september 2022 and it was far higher by then.

Tell us the number then

Go find it yourself. Their website is trash for this project because its gone on too long and had too many people come and go on it.

It's that bad!

The answer is complicated because it was an observation day and it us broken up into segments. The high was 69 between Woodley and Cathedral, Rock Creek Parkway obviously, but it was mostly 20-30.

The most popular route was Calvert westbound, which ironically is the way to get to Reno.

[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:

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.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

You keep saying this and it simply isn't true. The stat you cite was COMMUTING, like daily, downtown. There are still hundreds of cyclists using Connecticut Avenue to go to school and run errands. Those are not factored in the MWCOG survey.

Firstly let's put this straight out in the open. You clearly don't live near or use Connecticut Ave, north of Calvert.

Secondly, the number comes from DDOT which counted the number of bicyclists, just as they did cars. They have never released the exact number but they used a de minimis number of 100 as their estimate. That means we know it is less than 100.

Please remember that all numbers are done on a full year daily average basis.

They counted in the street. Not the sidewalk. Also, they updated that low stat observed in 2019 in like september 2022 and it was far higher by then.

Tell us the number then

Go find it yourself. Their website is trash for this project because its gone on too long and had too many people come and go on it.

It's that bad!

The answer is complicated because it was an observation day and it us broken up into segments. The high was 69 between Woodley and Cathedral, Rock Creek Parkway obviously, but it was mostly 20-30.

The most popular route was Calvert westbound, which ironically is the way to get to Reno.

Or Wisconsin, which was the more likely destination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight...

Save Conn Ave pushed for years to get the bike lanes taken out of this project. They seem to have succeeded on that. But to what end exactly?

This stupid road is going to be 4 travel lanes at all times now. This isn't an improvement over the other idea, this is bullshit. My commute is going to get longer now driving from just north of the border through Conn because someone wants to park their car on the street outside of their apartment during rush hour? This is absurd. Even more absurd than the asinine bike lanes idea.

Can we just cancel all of this crap and go back to what we had before the pandemic. Yes, the reversible was confusing, but it worked when it was there and traffic moved freely.

I don't see why you can't just take the Metro or a bus.

Wasn't that the suggestion for people who want to bike but don't like what it's like now?

PP here. Metro takes nearly 2 to 3 times as long is why, because I have to get a ride to Bethesda and then red line plus either transfer or walk a lot to my office which is off yellow/green. Driving there is just vastly quicker, even if it is more expensive. When the purple line comes, it won't change this to make it better.

This is the unfortunate reality, which is that DC public transit still sucks.

[Anonymous]

This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

[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:

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.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

You keep saying this and it simply isn't true. The stat you cite was COMMUTING, like daily, downtown. There are still hundreds of cyclists using Connecticut Avenue to go to school and run errands. Those are not factored in the MWCOG survey.

Firstly let's put this straight out in the open. You clearly don't live near or use Connecticut Ave, north of Calvert.

Secondly, the number comes from DDOT which counted the number of bicyclists, just as they did cars. They have never released the exact number but they used a de minimis number of 100 as their estimate. That means we know it is less than 100.

Please remember that all numbers are done on a full year daily average basis.

They counted in the street. Not the sidewalk. Also, they updated that low stat observed in 2019 in like september 2022 and it was far higher by then.

Tell us the number then

Go find it yourself. Their website is trash for this project because its gone on too long and had too many people come and go on it.

It's that bad!

The answer is complicated because it was an observation day and it us broken up into segments. The high was 69 between Woodley and Cathedral, Rock Creek Parkway obviously, but it was mostly 20-30.

The most popular route was Calvert westbound, which ironically is the way to get to Reno.

Or Wisconsin, which was the more likely destination.

Or Massachusetts

What I thought was so striking is that all things people were intuitively saying about alternative routes, demand, etc was easily noticeable in the data. This thing should never have gotten as far as it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

This won't make it easier. It simply makes it harder to bike or take a bus. For people driving cars, it will be worse for the reasons already cited.

[Anonymous]

I drove Connecticut Avenue today from Chevy Chase to downtown between 9:40 and 10:00AM. In the portion of the Avenue that is part of this proposal, I saw 22 cyclists.

None of them wore lycra.
It appeared as if 2-3 were commuting to downtown.
The rest were just regular people.


Anecdotal and not during a more peak period but it is still a data point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

Remote workers are happening with or without bike lanes. That is just a fact of post-COVID.

The only thing that will discourage remote work is when employers mandate people come back to an office 3-5 days a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

Remote workers are happening with or without bike lanes. That is just a fact of post-COVID.

The only thing that will discourage remote work is when employers mandate people come back to an office 3-5 days a week.

Are you stuck in 2021? COVID is over. Almost everyone in the private sector is back in the office. It’s only the government that’s systematically not going back to the office. Private sector workers are also more likely to drive because they command higher salaries and work in places, like Tysons, that are more convenient.

When government workers return to the office, I fully expect that they will follow the private sector and abandon Class B and C office space in DC in favor of the suburbs, which is closer and more convenient to where most government workers live anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove Connecticut Avenue today from Chevy Chase to downtown between 9:40 and 10:00AM. In the portion of the Avenue that is part of this proposal, I saw 22 cyclists.

None of them wore lycra.
It appeared as if 2-3 were commuting to downtown.
The rest were just regular people.


Anecdotal and not during a more peak period but it is still a data point.

At which point did you see them? Mostly downtown? I was sitting outside in Cleveland Park during that same period and saw two—one on the sidewalk and one on the street.

[Anonymous]

Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.