Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

Narrator: Offices are a contracting enterprise right now because so many are WFH. That has nothing to do with driving/commuting. That is just as true in Tysons and Columbia as it is in downtown DC.

Even remote workers need to head to the office sometimes, whether for in person meetings, lunches, dinners, etc. If DC makes that trip harder, DC will lose out. I note that DC's population remains well below the 1950s and 1960s.

The population in the 1950's and 60's were based on multigenerational households - 6-10 related people living in a house that today has 2-5 people. The DC population continues to grow, over 700,000 currently.

Yes, remote workers need to go into the office, sometimes. Maybe once a week, once a month? Not very often. The bike lane proposal for Connecticut Avenue, Concept C, was actually better for traffic flow than the current DDOT proposal for reasons already articulated. People who need to drive into the city via Connecticut Avenue should be opting for Concept C over what DDOT has proposed if they want easier access to downtown.

lol. How convoluted.

People with kids didn’t yet leave for the suburbs because a lot of the suburbs weren’t built yet.

Try reading census data from the time. The households were bigger. There is more density now, making up for the smaller households. Where were all of these ectra people living in the 1950's? What buildings and housing stock that existed then, but not now?

Not convoluted; The facts speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

I would support this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

So our choice is a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides a bike lane that will be used by two dozen people or a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides parking for one hundred people?

Forget that. Doing absolutely nothing is the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

So our choice is a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides a bike lane that will be used by two dozen people or a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides parking for one hundred people?

Forget that. Doing absolutely nothing is the way to go.

I don’t love either plan and think Connecticut should not be narrowed. But among the two choices, the better one seems to be the new plan which helps local businesses and people, especially less mobile citizens, who are more car dependent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

So our choice is a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides a bike lane that will be used by two dozen people or a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides parking for one hundred people?

Forget that. Doing absolutely nothing is the way to go.

I don’t love either plan and think Connecticut should not be narrowed. But among the two choices, the better one seems to be the new plan which helps local businesses and people, especially less mobile citizens, who are more car dependent.

+1. This should be great news for homeowners in Petworth and other areas with existing bike infrastructure. Property values are about to soar given how much pent up demand it sounds like there is for bike lanes in this city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

There are a group of people who think that people and particularly businesses will willingly accept increased inconvenience, when all evidence to the contrary and behavioral economics says the opposite.

If I can't drive and park easily to do business on the Avenue, I will take my business elsewhere. Very simple. I frequent Avenue businesses 4-5 times a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

So our choice is a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides a bike lane that will be used by two dozen people or a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides parking for one hundred people?

Forget that. Doing absolutely nothing is the way to go.

Agree 100% The bike crowd is looking for a solution where there is no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

Narrator: Offices are a contracting enterprise right now because so many are WFH. That has nothing to do with driving/commuting. That is just as true in Tysons and Columbia as it is in downtown DC.

Even remote workers need to head to the office sometimes, whether for in person meetings, lunches, dinners, etc. If DC makes that trip harder, DC will lose out. I note that DC's population remains well below the 1950s and 1960s.

The population in the 1950's and 60's were based on multigenerational households - 6-10 related people living in a house that today has 2-5 people. The DC population continues to grow, over 700,000 currently.

Yes, remote workers need to go into the office, sometimes. Maybe once a week, once a month? Not very often. The bike lane proposal for Connecticut Avenue, Concept C, was actually better for traffic flow than the current DDOT proposal for reasons already articulated. People who need to drive into the city via Connecticut Avenue should be opting for Concept C over what DDOT has proposed if they want easier access to downtown.

lol. How convoluted.

People with kids didn’t yet leave for the suburbs because a lot of the suburbs weren’t built yet.

Try reading census data from the time. The households were bigger. There is more density now, making up for the smaller households. Where were all of these ectra people living in the 1950's? What buildings and housing stock that existed then, but not now?

Not convoluted; The facts speak for themselves.

One might explain how the household size affects the desire for bikes on the Avenue. The issue with the Avenue is that DC seemingly pushing everyone to live in NW DC. DC has plenty of room for growth outside Ward 3. Moreover, DC thrived in recent decades precisely because suburbinates ventured into DC for entertainment, etc. Making that drive more difficult is not in DC's best interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cyclists are not opposed to dedicated bus lanes, as we easily share those with buses elsewhere in the city, although that kills any parking on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

There are a group of people who think that people and particularly businesses will willingly accept increased inconvenience, when all evidence to the contrary and behavioral economics says the opposite.

If I can't drive and park easily to do business on the Avenue, I will take my business elsewhere. Very simple. I frequent Avenue businesses 4-5 times a week.

Notwithstanding your personal preferences, bike lanes have been proven to be GOOD for businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want dedicated bus lanes with buses that circulate every 10 minutes. Works for commuters, works for shoppers. Moves more people than bikes do and maybe more than cars, depending on ridership.

Cool, cool. That’s not what you’re going to get though.

So our choice is a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides a bike lane that will be used by two dozen people or a horrible plan that increases congestion, increases accidents, diverts large amounts of traffic onto side streets and provides parking for one hundred people?

Forget that. Doing absolutely nothing is the way to go.

I don’t love either plan and think Connecticut should not be narrowed. But among the two choices, the better one seems to be the new plan which helps local businesses and people, especially less mobile citizens, who are more car dependent.

+1. This should be great news for homeowners in Petworth and other areas with existing bike infrastructure. Property values are about to soar given how much pent up demand it sounds like there is for bike lanes in this city.

I love the subtly of this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

The point was about WHEN those crashes occurred. Accidents of all sort happened at a significantly disproprtionate rate during rush hour and they almost all happened within the areas of highest congestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

The point was about WHEN those crashes occurred. Accidents of all sort happened at a significantly disproprtionate rate during rush hour and they almost all happened within the areas of highest congestion.

Fender benders happen when cars are backed up. Injury crashes happen when cars are moving fast. In my opinion, crashes that injure people are more of a concern than crashes that don't injure people. But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.