Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

They won’t succeed because Frumin got an earful from pissed off constituents the first time he proposed it and his whole orientation is about avoiding accountability. If any bad thing that happens after that will blamed on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

The bike lanes would have the same impact as the bulb-outs in terms of shortening the crossing distance with the added benefit that kids at Murch could also ride safely to their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

It's true, and it's accurate, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

It's true, and it's accurate, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense.

It absolutely is not and is totally silly. You are saying that a bike lane would be better for pedestrians than a bump out. Really? At best it would be neutral but in fact it’s worse because DDOT actually spends time educating cyclists that they are required to yield to pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100

Irrelevant, even if true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

It's true, and it's accurate, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense.

It absolutely is not and is totally silly. You are saying that a bike lane would be better for pedestrians than a bump out. Really? At best it would be neutral but in fact it’s worse because DDOT actually spends time educating cyclists that they are required to yield to pedestrians.

It is true. Lots of studies have established that. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100

Irrelevant, even if true.

There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.

30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.

It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.

Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.

If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.

It's true, and it's accurate, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense.

It absolutely is not and is totally silly. You are saying that a bike lane would be better for pedestrians than a bump out. Really? At best it would be neutral but in fact it’s worse because DDOT actually spends time educating cyclists that they are required to yield to pedestrians.

It is true. Lots of studies have established that. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.

And yet DDOT has to make videos to remind cyclists that they must stop to allow pedestrians to board buses.
https://youtu.be/COAseBBcxjY

You’re saying that you have actual studies that prove that the scenario above is safer for pedestrians and particularly small elementary school kids than curb extensions? Which DDOT helpfully highlight in this video?
https://youtu.be/020oXn2KiU0

This is such a stupid argument from an unserious person.