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: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.

You are twisting my point. I spoke only to my own neighborhood, for what that's worth. But my point was that you refuse to acknowledge that YOU win, and your vision, when executed, will take away from the quality of life for others, who will need to adapt or move away. It is dismissive and insulting to try to persuade me that it is a somehow a "win" for me to not be able to patronize the neighborhood places I've patronized for decades. It is not. I will certainly adjust, but it will be a loss. And I don't think it will be a win for the businesses, either, to lose their long-standing local customers and hope that a few stray bike commuters blowing through might stop to run their errands there. I sincerely doubt it.

[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.

Ward 8 has no bike lanes because Trayon White asked DDOT not to install any and DDOT complied for whatever reason. Ward 8 is the poorest part of the city and has horrendous numbers of traffic deaths. It needs traffic calming and better alternatives to driving than anywhere else in the city. But, having biked all over Ward 8, I will concede that the geography and topography do not make biking as good of an option there as it is elsewhere in the city. That - as well as the CM’s refusal to allow bike lanes to be built there - explains the low use of bikes there.

[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: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?

Some Corbosier dystopian futuristic city. Certainly not anything in the 20th or 21st centuries, except in the minds of these car-addicted boomers.

[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.

You are twisting my point. I spoke only to my own neighborhood, for what that's worth. But my point was that you refuse to acknowledge that YOU win, and your vision, when executed, will take away from the quality of life for others, who will need to adapt or move away. It is dismissive and insulting to try to persuade me that it is a somehow a "win" for me to not be able to patronize the neighborhood places I've patronized for decades. It is not. I will certainly adjust, but it will be a loss. And I don't think it will be a win for the businesses, either, to lose their long-standing local customers and hope that a few stray bike commuters blowing through might stop to run their errands there. I sincerely doubt it.

Your desire to maintain a lifestyle that is culturally, economically, and environmentally destructive for everyone else is not a sound basis for public policy.

[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...

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.

Ward 8 has no bike lanes because Trayon White asked DDOT not to install any and DDOT complied for whatever reason. Ward 8 is the poorest part of the city and has horrendous numbers of traffic deaths. It needs traffic calming and better alternatives to driving than anywhere else in the city. But, having biked all over Ward 8, I will concede that the geography and topography do not make biking as good of an option there as it is elsewhere in the city. That - as well as the CM’s refusal to allow bike lanes to be built there - explains the low use of bikes there.

White doesnt allow bike lanes, because his constituents told him they don't want bike lanes. Is it really that hard for you to understand that some people don't like bikes? I get it -- you're really, really into bikes. But look around you. You are a tiny, tiny minority of the population. Almost everyone in this city has looked at the idea of biking and said, "no thanks."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or...I'll just stay where I am and wait for the bike lanes! Thx

[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...

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.

Ward 8 has no bike lanes because Trayon White asked DDOT not to install any and DDOT complied for whatever reason. Ward 8 is the poorest part of the city and has horrendous numbers of traffic deaths. It needs traffic calming and better alternatives to driving than anywhere else in the city. But, having biked all over Ward 8, I will concede that the geography and topography do not make biking as good of an option there as it is elsewhere in the city. That - as well as the CM’s refusal to allow bike lanes to be built there - explains the low use of bikes there.

And yet, at any given time, you will see scores/hundreds of DC residents biking around there, going up the hill to Congress Heights, or down to the waterfront. Whatever, just because the CM doesn't like bike lanes doesn't mean his constituents aren't riding bikes. And no, many of them are not wearing spandex.

[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.

You are twisting my point. I spoke only to my own neighborhood, for what that's worth. But my point was that you refuse to acknowledge that YOU win, and your vision, when executed, will take away from the quality of life for others, who will need to adapt or move away. It is dismissive and insulting to try to persuade me that it is a somehow a "win" for me to not be able to patronize the neighborhood places I've patronized for decades. It is not. I will certainly adjust, but it will be a loss. And I don't think it will be a win for the businesses, either, to lose their long-standing local customers and hope that a few stray bike commuters blowing through might stop to run their errands there. I sincerely doubt it.

If your quality of life is dependent on two 5.5' strips of asphalt not being dedicated to wheeled use, then that isn't a lot to hang on to.

[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.

This is funny because I’ve actually done most of these things (including bike commuting to work [not in a suit as I change at the office] and carrying groceries for a family of 5 on my back). The humidity is great for shedding pounds in the process. My only frustration about biking in DC is that it took me so long to make the switch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are twisting my point. I spoke only to my own neighborhood, for what that's worth. But my point was that you refuse to acknowledge that YOU win, and your vision, when executed, will take away from the quality of life for others, who will need to adapt or move away. It is dismissive and insulting to try to persuade me that it is a somehow a "win" for me to not be able to patronize the neighborhood places I've patronized for decades. It is not. I will certainly adjust, but it will be a loss. And I don't think it will be a win for the businesses, either, to lose their long-standing local customers and hope that a few stray bike commuters blowing through might stop to run their errands there. I sincerely doubt it.

FWIW, I have been driving in DC and specifically Ward 3 since the early 1990's. I have lived in Woodley Park, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park. I have never once parked on Connecticut Avenue. When I go to Van Ness I park on Albemarle. When I go to Cleveland Park now, I park on Ordway or Macomb. When I go to Chevy Chase, I park on Livingston or 39th Street. There is NEVER an issue parking on any of these streets when I drive to those neighborhoods. The idea that one MUST park on Connecticut Avenue to support those businesses is just plain stupid.

That said, other than carrying a pizza back from Vace, pretty much everything else I do on the Avenue would be better suited to using a bike. But I don't feel safe riding a bike on the Avenue to do errands, and it is silly to suggest I use Beach Drive. Add a bike lane, and my car use will drop by at least half, and the parking spot I use on the afore mentioned streets can be used by someone else. I am not alone in this thinking as evidenced by the elected officials who heard my voice and the voices of hundreds of my neighbors expressing the same sentiment.

[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:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

You're the one demanding a one size fits all solution

How so? I am supporting the ability to drive, bike or walk safely.

No, you're not. You're calling for a downtown urban plan for an uptown suburban area that will make driving, biking and walking less safe in the area.

The whole 'reimainging CT Ave" is about safety - bike lanes, pedestrian buffer, more crosswalks etc.

That makes it safer for all modes of transportation. Keeping the status quo is dangerous, as the flipped car last week illustrates.

DC streets are quite safe. Only about 40 people per year die on DC streets, out of probably tens of millions of trips. You're 100 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, statistics show.

It's strange who the boys in spandex act like 4,000 violent crimes per year is a small number, so small that no one really needs to worry about it, but 40 people dying in traffic accidents is a huge number.

The point is to make the streets safer so more people will bike, take the bus, and kids can walk to school. There’s zero reason why the desire of Mr “I commute in from MD and am entitled to drive 50mph the whole way” should take precedence.

I’m currently mulling over a bunch of different places to move including along Connecticut, and this discussion reminded me that the protected bike lanes arw a huge plus for the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

Ward 8 has no bike lanes because Trayon White asked DDOT not to install any and DDOT complied for whatever reason. Ward 8 is the poorest part of the city and has horrendous numbers of traffic deaths. It needs traffic calming and better alternatives to driving than anywhere else in the city. But, having biked all over Ward 8, I will concede that the geography and topography do not make biking as good of an option there as it is elsewhere in the city. That - as well as the CM’s refusal to allow bike lanes to be built there - explains the low use of bikes there.

White doesnt allow bike lanes, because his constituents told him they don't want bike lanes. Is it really that hard for you to understand that some people don't like bikes? I get it -- you're really, really into bikes. But look around you. You are a tiny, tiny minority of the population. Almost everyone in this city has looked at the idea of biking and said, "no thanks."

Did his constituents tell him to also spread anti-Semitic tropes or duck out of a tour of the Holocaust Museum halfway through? Please tell us about other aspects of his policy platform you are enamored with. We will wait.

[Anonymous]

Your desire to feel sanctimonious will result in a lot of money and natural resources going into reconstructing Connecticut Ave to benefit a handful of vocal bike commuters. It will inconvenience many and will not save the planet, sorry.

[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:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

You're the one demanding a one size fits all solution

How so? I am supporting the ability to drive, bike or walk safely.

No, you're not. You're calling for a downtown urban plan for an uptown suburban area that will make driving, biking and walking less safe in the area.

The whole 'reimainging CT Ave" is about safety - bike lanes, pedestrian buffer, more crosswalks etc.

That makes it safer for all modes of transportation. Keeping the status quo is dangerous, as the flipped car last week illustrates.

DC streets are quite safe. Only about 40 people per year die on DC streets, out of probably tens of millions of trips. You're 100 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, statistics show.

It's strange who the boys in spandex act like 4,000 violent crimes per year is a small number, so small that no one really needs to worry about it, but 40 people dying in traffic accidents is a huge number.

The point is to make the streets safer so more people will bike, take the bus, and kids can walk to school. There’s zero reason why the desire of Mr “I commute in from MD and am entitled to drive 50mph the whole way” should take precedence.

I’m currently mulling over a bunch of different places to move including along Connecticut, and this discussion reminded me that the protected bike lanes arw a huge plus for the neighborhood.

At some point, majority should rule, right? If 30,000 people are using Connecticut avenue every day right now, maybe that's a wee bit more important than what nine white guys who really into bikes want...

[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.

Where along CT were you ever guaranteed a parking spot right in front of CVS? Nowhere, is the answer. Making the area more dense and more safe is better for you. If you do drive and park a block away, you’ll be able to cross the street more safely. Pickup/drop-off spaces and bike delivery will make it easier to get good delivered to your doorstep. If your plan for aging was to be able to drive up and park in front of CVS on CT, it was never going to happen. BTW - my aging relatives in NYC are thriving - almost entirely because there is zero need for a car.