Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

According to the bike lobby themselves, there’s only been one bike-auto accident in the Connecticut Avenue corridor under consideration for the bike lanes. And that was in 1971 when the cyclist ran a red light.

Absurd. There was a crash last Tuesday. It involved a cyclist and a vehicle. It was at 4000 Conn Ave. I mean holy shit are you dumb or willfully lying. I can't tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

An "accident" is running over an acorn and sending it flying to hit someone on the sidewalk. Speeding, looking at your phone, aggressively changing lanes, or cheating lights are things that cause *crashes*. See, the difference here is that someone is actually responsible for a crash and that infrastructure changes can help making being dumb on the road harder.

So is when a bike doesn’t stop at an intersection or goes flying through a crosswalk without dismounting or stopping (for example, despite specific stop signs for cyclists on the paths near the Kennedy Ctr). As a motorist and a cyclist, these situations can lead to accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

The references were to the very accident data set used by DDOT to justify the project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

According to the bike lobby themselves, there’s only been one bike-auto accident in the Connecticut Avenue corridor under consideration for the bike lanes. And that was in 1971 when the cyclist ran a red light.

Absurd. There was a crash last Tuesday. It involved a cyclist and a vehicle. It was at 4000 Conn Ave. I mean holy shit are you dumb or willfully lying. I can't tell.

I think both. It's pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

An "accident" is running over an acorn and sending it flying to hit someone on the sidewalk. Speeding, looking at your phone, aggressively changing lanes, or cheating lights are things that cause *crashes*. See, the difference here is that someone is actually responsible for a crash and that infrastructure changes can help making being dumb on the road harder.

Except the hard data shows that, of the accidents considered important by DDOT, that the vast majority occurred during rush hour and happened in the areas with the highest volume, roughly Nebraska and Porter.

[Anonymous]

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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

[Anonymous]

Of the 20 "disabling injury" accidents used by DDOT only 2 were caused by speeding. 1 of those also included a failure to yield the right of way while the other was done by an emergency vehicle.

[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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

I occasionally take the bus and metro during rush hour and it's filled with commuters. It's very rare that I've seen someone smoking pot on the train. And unless you equate thug with Black person, which would be quite racist, I also don't know what you're talking about with that point.

You can just say you like the convenience of driving and want everyone else to make way for you.

[Anonymous]

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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

"Thugs" is doing a lot of work there.

[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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

You realize crime is down, right?

[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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

You realize crime is down, right?

Believe it or not, people with a choice will avoid unpleasant situations that fall short of documented crime. For some people, it takes as little as foul language or offensive "music" blasting to tip them away from public transit. You can control the vibe in your car in a way you can't on transit. I say this as a transit supporter who has felt the vibe shift on metro over the years from "kid arrested for eating a french fry" to "Do as thou wilt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

[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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

I’m reading this on a crowded red line metro train right now, with no thugs and no one smoking pot. Just fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Right, and this is what's going to keep people driving as much as reliability and headways. Its also what's going to stop people from lingering in the city after dark. This is what the city, metro and business communities should be focused on.

You realize crime is down, right?

Believe it or not, people with a choice will avoid unpleasant situations that fall short of documented crime. For some people, it takes as little as foul language or offensive "music" blasting to tip them away from public transit. You can control the vibe in your car in a way you can't on transit. I say this as a transit supporter who has felt the vibe shift on metro over the years from "kid arrested for eating a french fry" to "Do as thou wilt."

Look, if it comes down to refusing to take Metro because someone MAY play music, then why in the world should this entitle you to control what everyone else does on Conn Ave? I’m sorry, but no. You choose to drive for those reasons and you deal with traffic and bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

It's funny that you say that because I spend roughly equal time as both a pedestrian and a cyclist on my day to day, so actually, yeah, I do give a shit about both and this plan is crap for both and could be way better.

Perhaps there are other parts of the city you’d feel more comfortable living in?