upzoning: what will it really change?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

You are saying that reducing potential and unquantified near misses are more important than actual documented injury and death. That’s not a good way to be “data driven” at all.

Where do you see me saying that? You just made it up.

Is this you?

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Can’t have it both ways, I’m sorry.
You

We should look at both areas of data does not mean we should prioritize deaths/injuries less than hazards.

Yet again, you show you're not arguing in good faith. How many more times do you want to show us all?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Perspective, logic, reason. Any other questions?

How ironic.

Please explain your perspectice, logic and reasoning because there doesn't seem to be any and you are avoiding answering the simple question. What exactly is incorrect about that statement?

Cars are bad. Driving them hurts the environment, kills people, and ruins cities.
Please explain why you disagree with that in explicit detail. Otherwise you are wrong.

/s

This is a case of sarcasm to point out how ridiculous you are. Try to keep up.

You seem to be projecting quite a lot and keep avoiding the question. What is wrong with the statement?

Does this plan cost tens of millions of dollars?
Will it substantially increase traffic on side streets in residential neighborhoods?
Do any businesses on the Avenue think this will benefit them?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

You are saying that reducing potential and unquantified near misses are more important than actual documented injury and death. That’s not a good way to be “data driven” at all.

Where do you see me saying that? You just made it up.

Is this you?

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Can’t have it both ways, I’m sorry.
You

We should look at both areas of data does not mean we should prioritize deaths/injuries less than hazards.

Yet again, you show you're not arguing in good faith. How many more times do you want to show us all?

So if the data says that there are 2 deaths over here (Ward 2) and 0 deaths over there (Ward 3) that should not be considered a basis for prioritizing resources because of something unquantified may or may not be happening and it’s not know if it’s happening more here (Ward 2) or there (Ward 3).

I think you need to think things through better.

[Anonymous]

Nick, you need mental help. Take better care of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nick, you need mental help. Take better care of yourself.

Your delusional, off target, deflecting, projecting, and trying to avoid answering simple questions because the facts are inconvenient for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

Because nobody bikes on that darn road.


Except for the PP that is too scared to walk across a traffic light controlled intersection but at the same time bikes uphill surrounded by thousands of "death machines" to do their grocery shopping.

I feel sorry for the woman in Arlington who pedals her cargo bike with three kids in the back to Arlington Food Assistance to pick up food. She struggles to pedal along Four Mile Run and presents a safety hazard to herself and the children. I am not sure why she won't use the adjoining bike path, but she always is in the street, itself.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.

[Anonymous]

TLR
In Arlington I have two issues. First and foremost is the infrastructure and our schools. The county is unwilling to spend the money necessary to increase school capacity in a way that works. Two, my family chose a suburban neighborhood. We live in one of the older neighborhoods that could be a target for upzoning as existing owners sell. We moved here because of the yards and the trees and the SFHs. If I wanted to be surrounded by apartments or townhouses we would have chosen a different location.

[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:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

Does the same logic apply to car accidents? Lots of people get killed in those every year, too.

"Lots" is a bit of a stretch. Only about 40 people are killed each year on DC streets, out of probably tens of millions of trips. (You're far more likely to be murdered in DC that killed in a traffic accident).

But, yes, as a driver, I fully expect to be in an accident or two in my life because statistics (I have never been in an accident thus far, and can't remember the last time I got a ticket). Bikers should fully expect to be hit by cars as well again because statistics.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.

Good point. There was that driver last week that tried to use the bridge that hasn't been built yet too. The article said she was drunk, but maybe she was just prescient about the need for a bridge 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

Does the same logic apply to car accidents? Lots of people get killed in those every year, too.

"Lots" is a bit of a stretch. Only about 40 people are killed each year on DC streets, out of probably tens of millions of trips. (You're far more likely to be murdered in DC that killed in a traffic accident).

But, yes, as a driver, I fully expect to be in an accident or two in my life because statistics (I have never been in an accident thus far, and can't remember the last time I got a ticket). Bikers should fully expect to be hit by cars as well again because statistics.

Nothing can be done to change that either. That's why all places have the same statistics. No one has figured out ways to make streets safer.

[Anonymous]

Who is Nick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Of course it's not going to make 10,000 people a day stop driving. it will just make all the streets more congested and less safe for everyone. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and anyone that thinks that is either naiive or a liar.

Make no mistake DC Gov is pushing this through against the wishes of the locals and alternatives were not seriously discussed. DDOT was so adamant about this plan that they completely changed the rules regarding community input at the end of last year in order to prevent citizens from stopping this idiocy.

I'm not sure streets that are more congested, i.e. traffic is moving more slowly, are less safe for everyone.

Riding a bike or a scooter on the streets of a major city is never going to be safe.

Sure, that's true, as evidenced by the fact that no one rides a bike in major cities around the world.

Even adjusting your statement to be "on the streets of a major American city," I guess you're still opposed to making it SAFER here? Makes sense; if something can't be absolutely perfect, probably no point in improving it at all.

It would be better if bikers could just take responsibility for their own actions.

They need to accept the fact that this thing they want to do is extremely dangerous, that accidents are inevitable and that it's not everyone else's job to prevent them from getting themselves killed.

Does the same logic apply to car accidents? Lots of people get killed in those every year, too.

"Lots" is a bit of a stretch. Only about 40 people are killed each year on DC streets, out of probably tens of millions of trips. (You're far more likely to be murdered in DC that killed in a traffic accident).

But, yes, as a driver, I fully expect to be in an accident or two in my life because statistics (I have never been in an accident thus far, and can't remember the last time I got a ticket). Bikers should fully expect to be hit by cars as well again because statistics.

Personally, I've been in more accidents as a driver in D.C. than a bicyclist (have been rear-ended twice while stopped at red lights, and someone smashed into our car making an illegal lane change while my spouse was driving; only accident as a bicyclist was when an Uber driver hit me while I was in a bike lane on a side street), despite probably making more bike trips than car trips over the years.

I don't think it's intrinsically so dangerous to ride a bike in D.C. that no one should do it, but the fact that you're statistically marginally more likely to be in a bike accident here than to be murdered does make me think making some improvements to infrastructure so it's safer would be a good idea.