Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that’s called “the tragedy of the commons” and we have democratic government to prevent it.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with "democracy" and "voting"

The relevant elected leaders of DC support this plan bc their constituents support this plan. The majority is ruling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This vision you have for the city as a place where everyone can drive everywhere and always have parking available right where they want it is not going to happen. And if we're being honest, it never was a thing.

Striving for it is killing people and ruining the environment.

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

Were you actually driving to and parking directly in front of those stores on a regular basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

When I lived in Capitol Hill we biked as a family all the time and felt very safe. Bc Cap Hill has good bike lanes. Nothing is perfectly safe (including DRIVING EVERYWHERE) and biking makes a ton of sense as a way to get around in a city. We should work to make it safer for everyone.

Here here. Whenever I go to NW I am very surprised by the lack of bike lanes compared to the Hill.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority rules doesn’t work so well in mental institutions and, by all appearances, drivers along CT Ave are completely mental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

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

Good for you, superior one.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with "democracy" and "voting"

The relevant elected leaders of DC support this plan bc their constituents support this plan. The majority is ruling

To be fair, the MD commuters could try to get their elected officials to overrule DC via the budget or something like that. That would be our "democracy" in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

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

Good for you, superior one.

The point was that you are dead wrong.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with "democracy" and "voting"

The relevant elected leaders of DC support this plan bc their constituents support this plan. The majority is ruling

This is some looking glass sh*t. This Connecticut street project is wildly unpopular. Almost everyone thinks its crazy, which is why our government is not even allowing the public to comment on it.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with "democracy" and "voting"

The relevant elected leaders of DC support this plan bc their constituents support this plan. The majority is ruling

This is some looking glass sh*t. This Connecticut street project is wildly unpopular. Almost everyone thinks its crazy, which is why our government is not even allowing the public to comment on it.

Please point to the evidence that this project is wildly unpopular with the residents of DC. And no, the handful of disgruntled people on your NIMBY listserv is not evidence of that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

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

Please stop telling me what you think is better for 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:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

This, also, is magical thinking. Cutting the available curbside parking in half will not make it easier for older folks to park. If I want to pick up dry cleaning, or a prescription at CVS or groceries at Yes or Brookville or a few fresh items at the farm market on Saturday, my choices will be to walk or bike uphill (which I could do 30 years ago when I moved into the neighborhood but cannot now), take a taxi or Uber both ways ($$ and no longer a quick errand with waiting time on both ends), or be dependent on someone else to drive me and wait for me while I shop. Sorry, that's not a win-win for me, and it's insulting for you to imply that it is. Yes, I'll find somewhere else to go, but it is hardly a win-win.

This vision you have for the city as a place where everyone can drive everywhere and always have parking available right where they want it is not going to happen. And if we're being honest, it never was a thing.

Striving for it is killing people and ruining the environment.

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

Were you actually driving to and parking directly in front of those stores on a regular basis?

On a weekday morning after rush hour, yes it is possible to get within a block or so.

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

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

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

But sure, there are no studies.

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with "democracy" and "voting"

The relevant elected leaders of DC support this plan bc their constituents support this plan. The majority is ruling

This is some looking glass sh*t. This Connecticut street project is wildly unpopular. Almost everyone thinks its crazy, which is why our government is not even allowing the public to comment on it.

Please point to the evidence that this project is wildly unpopular with the residents of DC. And no, the handful of disgruntled people on your NIMBY listserv is not evidence of that

This is the guy who thinks only white people bike in DC, so don't expect him to have any perspective like that. He only cares about himself and only listens to himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near CT Avenue and am thrilled with the addition of the bike lanes. I think it will be a great transformation of the Avenue and will make it more vibrant.

I continue to be floored by the consistent complaint by people saying "these businesses all will fail because I can't park in front of it". Sounds like you should go move to Gaithersburg or Potomac. Do you forget that you actually live in a city?? There is loads of public transportation, taxis, Uber.... If you can't bike or walk there will be plenty of options for you to get there. That is part of living in a vibrant city. And, may I remind you that many parts of the city have vibrant commercial areas that are patronized by people who do not drive there. Dupont Circle, Georgetown, H Street Corridor. People either drive, park several blocks away after searching for parking or they use another mode of transportation to get there. And its all just fine. Those businesses are fine. So please, your miniscule business will be replaced by much, much more business. This is going to be a great commercial improvement for these businesses.

+100

I'm the PP above. Just wanted to add that I'm under no delusion that I'm going to start biking everywhere. I hope to start biking more but probably am going to walk more. Or I may have to drive and park 3 blocks away from CT Avenue instead of 1 block away as I do right now (because it takes longer to pay the meter than to walk a block). I hope to take the bus more during daylight and probably will have to UBER more home after dark. And I am perfectly happy to make these changes if it will be more people out of their cars.

[Anonymous]

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

And in the long term, more people will bike which means less pollution and better health results for the residents who use the bike lanes, so a win all around.