Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the bike lanes fit on Reno Rd? That’s a solution that might make everyone happy since it’s a scenic north-south residential street.

No, they couldn't.

And, there are no shops and restaurants on reno road, so why would anyone want to ride there?

Biking in this context is transportation, not recreation.

In other words, if there aren't bars and sidewalk cafes to bike to, then the bike lane isn't of much use.

No, what I mean is, it is a form of transportation, of which running errands is one use. If a lane is on another road, that is fine, but Connecticut Avenue is the only north to south route that also has amenities on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

Yes, that is what the interim director said yesterday. Instead of 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes, DDOT is going to life all parking restrictions so there is parking on both sides 24/7. That is their proposed "road diet."

The result of course, is that the same traffic woes anticipated by the "save connecticut ave" group will be in play, without the added benefit of some drivers switching to biking instead. Under this scenario, you lose the easy access to sidewalks for the handicapped community, and buses will have to revert to the pulling in with the rear of the bus taking part of a lane at each stop. Add to it, bikers will still want to use the Avenue and will be within their rights to simply use a full lane, with resulting car back-ups behind them.

Well, this is now crazy. I feel like I was in the 98% of people that didn't give a rat's a** if they installed bike lanes or not...but how in the heck is this now the outcome?

because the goal has always been traffic calming. the anti-bike-obsessed refused to listen to this.

Indeed, and without the bike lanes, it’s a true win for pedestrians. The pro-bike-lane obsessed refused to listen to this.

Not really. It will still be a mostly unpleasant auto-centric traffic sewer

Adding another hazard (the bike lanes) would have been even worse.

Bike lanes increase sight distance. Parked cars reduce them. Legit this is way worse.

They’re adding bump outs. The sight distance will be increased and we won’t have to dodge the cyclists who can’t be bothered to stop or even slow down for pedestrians. It’s the best possible outcome if you care at all about pedestrian safety.

This is smart. Bump outs will mean fewer cyclists who fly through red lights from the right field of vision.

It also mean a permanent 2-lane in each direction solution, you know, the thing that was going to cause so much back-up that everyone3 was going to cut through the neighborhoods putting kids at extra risk, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

Yes, that is what the interim director said yesterday. Instead of 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes, DDOT is going to life all parking restrictions so there is parking on both sides 24/7. That is their proposed "road diet."

The result of course, is that the same traffic woes anticipated by the "save connecticut ave" group will be in play, without the added benefit of some drivers switching to biking instead. Under this scenario, you lose the easy access to sidewalks for the handicapped community, and buses will have to revert to the pulling in with the rear of the bus taking part of a lane at each stop. Add to it, bikers will still want to use the Avenue and will be within their rights to simply use a full lane, with resulting car back-ups behind them.

Well, this is now crazy. I feel like I was in the 98% of people that didn't give a rat's a** if they installed bike lanes or not...but how in the heck is this now the outcome?

because the goal has always been traffic calming. the anti-bike-obsessed refused to listen to this.

As someone who hasn’t been following this too closely, I find this outcome pretty amusing. Sounds like it’s the worst of all possible outcomes for everyone - drivers, bikers, bus-riders and pedestrians. But cheapest for the city since it’s in a budget crunch. Congrats to everyone who uses Connecticut Ave! Looks like that road will be even shittier than ever.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

There's already a bike lane in Rock Creek park that is away from all automobile traffic. If people wanted to bike, they already have the infrastructure to do so.

So I should go from Van Ness to Cleveland Park via...rock Creek Park? That makes a whole lotta sense, especially coming back with what I have purchased in Cleveland Park riding up Tilden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

Imagine spending tens of thousands of dollars - and in the process emitting noxious chemicals that make life worse on the planet, endangering all manner of other road users, and consuming a vast array of public subsidies - on a commute that you could do for free on a bicycle or a few dollars on WMATA and then claiming others are entitled . . .

Your complete and utter lack of self-awareness is absolutely hysterical.

And your assumption that “everyone can and should bike or take WMATA” isn’t?

What a cute edge case. DC could build bike lanes until the cows come home and still have more than enough roads to accommodate the small proportion of suburban commuters who are physically unable to ride a bike, take WMATA, or carpool.

You love to make this about “suburban commuters” but plenty of people who live in the affected neighborhoods oppose adding bike lanes for a multitude of reasons.

I can make things too. But I won’t. In the real world, those neighborhoods elected ANC reps and a Councilmember that overwhelmingly supported the bike lanes. Proposal C, unlike the mayor’s diktat, was the product of a lengthy process of community consultation.

Get back to us after the next election about those ANC reps. People didn't have other options in most cases. And we all know those ANC reps gave a literal FU to their constituents. And many of those ANC reps ran opposed as part of a strategy by Greater Greater Washington to try to stack the ANCs with their candidates in elections where people tended to pay little attention. Next election cycle will be different. People have woken up.

It isn't a strategy to run unopposed. That is what happens when there is apathy. Are you stepping up to run?

And they didn't give the finger to their constituents, they gave it to the signs which represent overt hostility to people who simply want to be able to ride a bike safely to run their errands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

That is what it seems like. I can't believe I am saying this, but I am with the bike bros here, this seems like a bad plan...

Does anyone else remember the idiotic plan to reduce traffic on Wisconsin Ave near Glover park about 10 years ago or a barrier that went up on Mass. Ave NW by the mosque/entrance to Rock Creek Parkway? The latter only lasted about a week because it was causing horrific traffic back ups. I think the same will happen here.

There were back-ups because 37th Street was under construction at the same time. The city never gave the plan a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They built bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. Traffic is now more congested and the bike lanes are barely used.

It’s nice how you like to make things up. There was an actual study of this and it showed the opposite.

Show, don't tell.

You could either go to the DDOT site or do a search on this site for the 400 page CT Ave bike lane thread that was locked.

[Anonymous]

NW DC still failing miserably on the bike infrastructure that all world-class neighborhoods enjoy. With the improvements of W6 schools and better housing values the Hill continues to smoke you in terms of neighborhood value. Lol. Anyway, at a minimum you’re being forced to accept that no, Conn Ave is not a 4-lane highway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that all parking restrictions on CT Avenue are getting lifted? In other words, you can park during rush hour?

That would be an absolutely horrible result from this effort if that is the case.

That is what it seems like. I can't believe I am saying this, but I am with the bike bros here, this seems like a bad plan...

Does anyone else remember the idiotic plan to reduce traffic on Wisconsin Ave near Glover park about 10 years ago or a barrier that went up on Mass. Ave NW by the mosque/entrance to Rock Creek Parkway? The latter only lasted about a week because it was causing horrific traffic back ups. I think the same will happen here.

There were back-ups because 37th Street was under construction at the same time. The city never gave the plan a chance.

Glover Park is laughably bad for biking. I hope you all enjoy bikes on the sidewalks. With just a small amount of effort you could have set it up so kids could bike to MacArthur. Now you get what you deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the bike lanes fit on Reno Rd? That’s a solution that might make everyone happy since it’s a scenic north-south residential street.

No, they couldn't.

And, there are no shops and restaurants on reno road, so why would anyone want to ride there?

Biking in this context is transportation, not recreation.

In other words, if there aren't bars and sidewalk cafes to bike to, then the bike lane isn't of much use.

Oh wow. Who knew that there was all this pent-up demand to bike to Nanny O'Brien's for a pint? And isn't it illegal to drink and ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NW DC still failing miserably on the bike infrastructure that all world-class neighborhoods enjoy. With the improvements of W6 schools and better housing values the Hill continues to smoke you in terms of neighborhood value. Lol. Anyway, at a minimum you’re being forced to accept that no, Conn Ave is not a 4-lane highway.

What's a world-class neighborhood? And does it comprise mostly white people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NW DC still failing miserably on the bike infrastructure that all world-class neighborhoods enjoy. With the improvements of W6 schools and better housing values the Hill continues to smoke you in terms of neighborhood value. Lol. Anyway, at a minimum you’re being forced to accept that no, Conn Ave is not a 4-lane highway.

Seriously? The families of Capitol Hill love these progressive policies so much that they are fleeing en mass and the ones that are staying are fighting to recall their councilman. THIS is the best example you have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

There's already a bike lane in Rock Creek park that is away from all automobile traffic. If people wanted to bike, they already have the infrastructure to do so.

So I should go from Van Ness to Cleveland Park via...rock Creek Park? That makes a whole lotta sense, especially coming back with what I have purchased in Cleveland Park riding up Tilden.

Bus, metro, or walk. All are very easy to do between those two points.

[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:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

Would you like a social security number as well?

The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.

There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.

Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.

You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?

Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.

But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

DP, but there are music studios in Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase, there are gyms with kids classes up and down the Avenue, there are schools that hold classes including UDC, Burke, Murch, Eaton, I mean, if you have kids and use the resources in the area, it is a lot easier to bike than drive and try to park, but biking is too dangerous.

OK. Murch and Eaton are on Reno Rd. Put a bike lane there.

It makes too much sense to make Reno the main north-south bike route. Add some east-west routes to connect schools and link to Wisconsin and you have a great backbone.