Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

Where do people get this from? Do you think that people who bike don't buy things? I am much more likely to pull over and patronize local businesses on my bike rather than in a car since it is easier to find bike parking. I live in the city, I have a dual income family, and we don't have a large car payment so we have more disposable income to spend on supporting local businesses.

Most of the people who say stuff like this have never ridden a bike. They don't realize how different it is from a perception standpoint to pedal somewhere (when peaceful and not having to be in hypervigilant mode about cars trying to kill you), versus the zoned out car driver doing their daily grind commute. They don't realize that most bike riders actually enjoy their commute and don't mind stopping along the way for a bite to eat. Where most car drivers are just in a competition to beat whomever to the next red light in a fruitless battle to get through grid lock.

It's a shame, because for ever cyclist on the road, that's one less car. Or that one more seat open on a crowded metro train. Or that is one more opening on a bus.

But no, no. Cyclist be damned. Subhuman scoundrels.

Sounds like you have no idea what driving is like and are suffering from serious projection issues. By the way, biking primarily replaces walking and local bus use not driving or metro which are both used primarily for longer trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

How is it every other city in the US can have functioning bike lanes on commercial corridors, but DC can't and specifically Connecticut Avenue? What is so 'special' about Connecticut Ave that it cannot work?

It's not the addition of bike lanes that is a problem. It is the removal of two lanes of traffic that is the problem.

It is one lane of traffic that is being removed, only during rush hour. Do you think all of those people commuting are spending lots of money at Bread Furst? If you do then you should support this plan because it adds parking during the AM & PM rush, parking spaces that don't exist today.

For the 100th time in this ignorant thread the off peak carrying capacity of the road is going to be increased over the long time status quo which is to say about 90% of the week the corridor will be able to move more cars than it historically has, not less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

Where do people get this from? Do you think that people who bike don't buy things? I am much more likely to pull over and patronize local businesses on my bike rather than in a car since it is easier to find bike parking. I live in the city, I have a dual income family, and we don't have a large car payment so we have more disposable income to spend on supporting local businesses.

Most of the people who say stuff like this have never ridden a bike. They don't realize how different it is from a perception standpoint to pedal somewhere (when peaceful and not having to be in hypervigilant mode about cars trying to kill you), versus the zoned out car driver doing their daily grind commute. They don't realize that most bike riders actually enjoy their commute and don't mind stopping along the way for a bite to eat. Where most car drivers are just in a competition to beat whomever to the next red light in a fruitless battle to get through grid lock.

It's a shame, because for ever cyclist on the road, that's one less car. Or that one more seat open on a crowded metro train. Or that is one more opening on a bus.

But no, no. Cyclist be damned. Subhuman scoundrels.

Sounds like you have no idea what driving is like and are suffering from serious projection issues. By the way, biking primarily replaces walking and local bus use not driving or metro which are both used primarily for longer trips.

citation for this? Isn't true for our household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

How is it every other city in the US can have functioning bike lanes on commercial corridors, but DC can't and specifically Connecticut Avenue? What is so 'special' about Connecticut Ave that it cannot work?

It's not the addition of bike lanes that is a problem. It is the removal of two lanes of traffic that is the problem.

It is one lane of traffic that is being removed, only during rush hour. Do you think all of those people commuting are spending lots of money at Bread Furst? If you do then you should support this plan because it adds parking during the AM & PM rush, parking spaces that don't exist today.

For the 100th time in this ignorant thread the off peak carrying capacity of the road is going to be increased over the long time status quo which is to say about 90% of the week the corridor will be able to move more cars than it historically has, not less.

As someone had posted previously, usually during the 4 lane configuration, the left lane was blocked with left turning vehicles and the right lane was blocked with illegally parked cars. Those two go away in the new configuration, thus still two through lanes, and pocket left turn lane and no right lane to be blocked (unless you want to assume that car owners will always break the law when they can)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

Where do people get this from? Do you think that people who bike don't buy things? I am much more likely to pull over and patronize local businesses on my bike rather than in a car since it is easier to find bike parking. I live in the city, I have a dual income family, and we don't have a large car payment so we have more disposable income to spend on supporting local businesses.

Most of the people who say stuff like this have never ridden a bike. They don't realize how different it is from a perception standpoint to pedal somewhere (when peaceful and not having to be in hypervigilant mode about cars trying to kill you), versus the zoned out car driver doing their daily grind commute. They don't realize that most bike riders actually enjoy their commute and don't mind stopping along the way for a bite to eat. Where most car drivers are just in a competition to beat whomever to the next red light in a fruitless battle to get through grid lock.

It's a shame, because for ever cyclist on the road, that's one less car. Or that one more seat open on a crowded metro train. Or that is one more opening on a bus.

But no, no. Cyclist be damned. Subhuman scoundrels.

Sounds like you have no idea what driving is like and are suffering from serious projection issues. By the way, biking primarily replaces walking and local bus use not driving or metro which are both used primarily for longer trips.

citation for this? Isn't true for our household.

That's the role of bicycling in urban transportation. Distances less than 5 miles. The exact role that buses currently play.

[Anonymous]

biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

Where do people get this from? Do you think that people who bike don't buy things? I am much more likely to pull over and patronize local businesses on my bike rather than in a car since it is easier to find bike parking. I live in the city, I have a dual income family, and we don't have a large car payment so we have more disposable income to spend on supporting local businesses.

Most of the people who say stuff like this have never ridden a bike. They don't realize how different it is from a perception standpoint to pedal somewhere (when peaceful and not having to be in hypervigilant mode about cars trying to kill you), versus the zoned out car driver doing their daily grind commute. They don't realize that most bike riders actually enjoy their commute and don't mind stopping along the way for a bite to eat. Where most car drivers are just in a competition to beat whomever to the next red light in a fruitless battle to get through grid lock.

It's a shame, because for ever cyclist on the road, that's one less car. Or that one more seat open on a crowded metro train. Or that is one more opening on a bus.

But no, no. Cyclist be damned. Subhuman scoundrels.

Sounds like you have no idea what driving is like and are suffering from serious projection issues. By the way, biking primarily replaces walking and local bus use not driving or metro which are both used primarily for longer trips.

citation for this? Isn't true for our household.

This is my favorite thing that cyclists do, frequent use of annectdata.

Studies say that the sweet spot for mode share are waking < 1 mile, bicycles < 2 miles, bus/subway < 5 miles, and commuter rail < 15 miles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

I appreciate that you support adding bike lanes but still want to re-iterate that one lane is being re-purposed for bike lanes.

It is a talking point of the pro car NIMBY's that 2 lanes are being re-purposed but that is not true - 5 of Connecticut Avenues 6 lanes under Concept C are still dedicated to cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

The "pedestrian lanes" are called sidewalks. And the CT Project has many, many features to improve pedestrian safety. But of course you don't actually care about the actual project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

What is not a niche constituency in DC is people who don't drive for all their trips. 40% of DC households don't own a car and the majority of households that do own cars are, like our family, car light.

So we do drive. But we also walk, take the bus, take Metro and bike. We occasionally (though as rarely as possible) use Uber. I have a Capital Bikeshare membership though I only use it a couple of times a month. Much to my chagrin my teen regularly rents those Lime scooters for getting around and leaves them on the sidewalk in front of our house. And sometimes if both kids have sports events in the burbs at the same time we carpool.

The overwhelming majority of cars on the street in my DC neighborhood are from MD - easily 90% - I see no reason why DC transportation policy should be oriented towards that constituency particularly when they degrade the quality of life for DC residents.

DC transportation policy should instead be designed around safely moving DC residents around the city via all modes of transportation and remaking CT Ave improves the corridor for bikers, pedestrians, transit users and yes drivers. It comes at the expense of some parking spaces and some rush hour road carrying capacity but so what - it will make the road safe and usable for more DC residents while making it feel more like a neighborhood street than a traffic sewer for MD residents who have no concerns whatsoever for the livability of our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

The "pedestrian lanes" are called sidewalks. And the CT Project has many, many features to improve pedestrian safety. But of course you don't actually care about the actual project.

What a dumb comment but it is an ignorant one which makes it consistent with the other comments in this thread and on the neighborhood listserves.

Besides getting bikes and scooters off of the sidewalk which is a big net win for pedestrians the plan includes a couple of additional hawk signals in the corridor which will eliminate some existing gaps in the corridor between safe spaces to cross. Also narrowing the road from 6 lanes to 5 will make it easier to cross for pedestrians and getting rid of rush hour travel lanes and lowering the speed limit will calm traffic and reduce red-light running.

Oh and the current planning process is also studying all signal timing and among the factors they are considering is pedestrian crossing times - currently all of the signals are times only to get as many cars through the corridor as possible and 20 second crossing times are common in the corridor today.

So yeah this project will be a big net win for pedestrians.